Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Guards' Chapel, Wellington Barracks (Rebuilding)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for War when the Guards' Chapel at Wellington Barracks, destroyed by enemy action in the war, is to be rebuilt.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I hope that we shall be able to start building in 1961.

Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate, from one guardsman to another, that that is a very friendly Answer which will be received with much pleasure throughout the Brigade of Guards?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Thunderbird Missile

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that the Thunderbird is the best available surface-to-air missile for the Army; and if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding its future use.

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. The weapon is in production for the Army and a more advanced version is being developed.

Mr. Strachey: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the development of the diversity of types which I have in mind, Bloodhound in particular, is advisable? I realise the difference between the types of weapon, but it seems doubtful whether we are within our capacity in trying to develop these other weapons, especially now that Bloodhound has been ordered so widely abroad?

Mr. Soames: I think that this is a matter which lends itself more to debate than to Question and Answer. Broadly speaking, I know the sort of thing which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have considered the matter and we are of the opinion that for Army use the Thunderbird is, if I may adapt a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the best missile we have.

Command Ordnance Depôt, Hilsea

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to make an announcement about the future of the Command Ordnance Depôt. Hilsea.

Mr. Soames: The Command Ordnance Depôt will be closed by the beginning of April and the staff were so informed in October. The possibility of using Hilsea for another Army establishment later in the year is now being examined. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend more information about this as soon as possible.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend know that for one year it has been decided that this depôt should close, and that a large number of people will be unemployed if he does not make up his mind very soon about how he will treat this depôt in future?

Mr. Soames: The future of this depôt has been uncertain for about a year. I hope that the matter will be resolved by Christmas and that I will be able to inform my hon. and gallant Friend.

Senior Officers (Speeches)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he makes to examine the scripts of proposed speeches by senior officers of the Army.

Mr. Soames: Material which an officer wishes to publish must first be sent to the War Office. It is examined under normal Departmental arrangements and submitted to me if necessary.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what circumstances he approved General Cowley's lecture?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I have explained this matter before. When an officer


submits a lecture to me I take into account all sorts of considerations beyond the content and material of the lecture, such as the place in which it is to be given, the audience to whom it is to be given and a number of other factors. After considering them all, I thought that it was an appropriate lecture to be given to the R.U.S.I.

Mr. John Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is a fact that General Cowley made it clear in his address that the views he was expressing were entirely his own personal views?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I mentioned on an earlier occasion that that was a feature in my mind in passing this speech.

Mr. Strachey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side of the House would be very sorry if he were to depart from the liberal policy of allowing such speeches to be made which he has pursued in this instance?

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the very useful exchanges of view which have taken place from time to time over the years at the Royal United Service Institution will not be in any way curbed as a result of the new arrangements?

Mr. Soames: I am not responsible for the R.U.S.I. or who it invites to speak at its Institution.

Mr. Donnelly: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what amendments to Queen's Regulations will be made in view of the new policy?

Mr. Soames: There is no question of amendment to Queen's Regulations. An officer's duty will remain the same—to submit anything he proposes to say to the War Office. His duty is completed when that has been done.

Short Take-off Aircraft and Helicopters

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has stated the Army's requirements for vertical take-off and landing aircraft to the Ministry of Aviation; and if he will make a statement;
(2) whether he has yet stated the Army's requirements for helicopters to

the Ministry of Aviation; and whether, under the new arrangements, this requirement has the approval of the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Soames: Light helicopters are in service with the Army Air Corps; and for several years Royal Air Force helicopters have supported the Army in military operations in Malaya, Cyprus and elsewhere.
More extensive use is to be made of short take-off aircraft and helicopters, for the tactical lift of men and equipment in forward areas. Proposals for extra aircraft, which have been agreed with the Ministry of Defence, have been put forward.

Mr. Strachey: Will these proposals include the Fairey Rotodyne, which, we understand, has been accepted as an Army requirement? If so, will the Secretary of State see that no private firm is allowed to stand in the way of the early and prompt fulfilment of the Army's requirement in this respect?

Mr. Soames: We state our requirements to the Ministry of Aviation and it is for that Department and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to have dealings with the firm concerned.

Mr. Strachey: Will not the Secretary of State make representations to his right hon. Friend that the Army must be satisfied promptly in this matter?

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend and I know exactly what we both think about it.

Buckingham Palace (Guards)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the removal of the Guards to behind the railings at Buckingham Palace is permanent; and what economy has been effected thereby.

Mr. Soames: The new arrangements, which are permanent, have not produced any economies, nor were they intended so to do.

Mr. Lipton: Will not the Secretary of State for War agree that this ignoble order to retreat behind the railings is not in accord with the illustrious traditions of the Guards? Could not some other way be found of dealing with the female nitwits and others who were getting in their way?

Mr. Soames: That is the type of supplementary question on a Question of this character to which the House is accustomed from the hon. Member. It was a sensible move which was decided upon, and I think that it is of benefit all round.

Bank of England (Guards' Picquet)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what discussions have taken place to dispense with the Guards' picquet at the Bank of England.

Mr. Soames: Because of the reduction in establishment of the Brigade of Guards, the number of men needed for public duties was reviewed. The Bank picquet was included in this review, and on this point the Governor of the Bank of England was consulted. It has been decided to continue the picquet.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bank of England is getting the services of seventeen men for a thirteen-hour-shift nightly for a total expenditure by the Bank of 54s.? That does not seem to be anything like a trade union rate for the job. Will the Bank of England at least pay for the expense that public funds incur in this relic of the past?

Mr. Soames: There have been a number of raids on banks recently, but there has not been a raid on the Bank of England since 1780.

Surplus Boots

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 890,000 pairs of surplus boots that have been sold were released on the home market.

Mr. Soames: None of the boots were sold for the home market, except that one contractor has been allowed to sell in this country 5,000 pairs which had been damaged by flooding in his warehouse.
It has come to my attention that a larger consignment which was sold to a contractor, and by him to a foreign buyer for export, was later sold again in this country. I am looking into this.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why boots which have been damaged have been sold to our people and those that are good have

been sold abroad? Why should we have the rotten end? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have correspondence from knowledgeable people that during a period when the heavy boot trade has been having a bad time, some of these boots that ought never to have been made have been sold in this country? What does the Secretary of State propose to do now that he knows the contractor has broken his bond? The right hon. Gentleman says that he is looking into the matter, but we would like to know what action he is taking?

Mr. Soames: At the moment, I cannot say. All I can say is that I am looking into it. As to boots which have been severely damaged being sold on the home market as opposed to going abroad, the hon. Member answered that himself in the second part of his supplementary question. That is something in which the boot and shoe industry has a great interest.

Mr. M. Stewart: With all these boots to spare, could not we give one to the Government?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member is always witty.

National Service Men

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married men with a wife and more than one young child are now doing their National Service in the Army; and if he will discharge such men on compassionate grounds.

Mr. Soames: I have told the hon. Member on a previous occasion that the information he wants could not be obtained without a search of individual records. Soldiers are released from National Service if their absence from home is causing undue hardship to their families.

Mr. Allaun: Can the Minister deny that undue hardship is being caused when a mother, sometimes in her teens, is left alone to bring up two babies, as is happening; that in May the Government promised sympathetic consideration for men with one child in difficult home circumstances, and that this sympathetic consideration is not being given, even when there are two children and, therefore, far more difficult home circumstances?

Mr. Soames: The difference between the hon. Member and myself on this point is that he has it in mind that the fact alone that a young man is married and has two children should of itself be grounds for excluding him from doing his National Service. I do not agree with that. On the other hand, however, we say that if the man can prove that to do his National Service would cause undue hardship to the family, he will be released. I believe that some 1,200 men have been so released in the past year when hardship has been shown to exist.

Mr. Awbery: Will the Secretary of State now take the first step to abolish conscription by stopping the call-up of married men?

Mr. Strachey: The first step to abolish conscription was taken back in 1957, when it was decided to end it.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory and, in my view, inhuman Answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Microbiological Warfare

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the Army is trained for microbiological warfare.

Mr. Soames: No such training is given.

Mr. Hughes: What will the Minister do with the new Porton microbiological station which he has inherited? Is he aware that there appeared in the Daily Express a statement that he had struggled with the Minister of Defence for control of this microbiological place and that he had won? What will he do about it now?

Mr. Soames: I do not think that the hon. Member will expect me to comment on an article in the Daily Express. I know of no struggle over this establishment. It was not allied exclusively to any one Government Department, but in view of its defence interests and its administrative links with the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, it was considered appropriate that the War Office should be responsible for it. Its work will continue exactly the same as in the past.

Mr. Paget: Is it within the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that in Russia

considerable resources are being devoted to chemical warfare? Why are our people not being given training in this important new branch of warfare?

Mr. Soames: The Question asked about microbiological and not chemical warfare.

Royal Highland Fusiliers (Posting to Aden)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why the Royal Highland Fusiliers are being sent to Aden;
(2) how many of the Royal Highland Fusiliers to be sent to Aden are National Servicemen.

Mr. Soames: This battalion, which includes 130 National Service men, is going to Aden to relieve another infantry unit.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister informed about the appalling conditions prevailing in Aden? Are any of these soldiers from the West of Scotland expected to pay £21 in rent for a slum house? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine sympathetically the proposition made by Lady Tedder that ships should be sent out until housing conditions are made better? Will he consult his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to see that hospital ships go out, led by the hospital ship "Britannia"?

Mr. Soames: I know of no case of any Army personnel paying a rent anything like the figure which the hon. Gentleman has quoted. Indeed, we have a comparatively small number of Army families in Aden who are in private accommodation, fewer than fifty in the whole of the Aden garrison. I have had no complaints from the garrison about accommodation. Of course, Aden is overcrowded. We are proceeding with building there for what we envisage as being the permanent garrison in Aden. Strategic needs force us to keep a rather larger garrison there at present and they must perforce be in temporary accommodation. It is the climate which demands a very high standard of accommodation. It is the great heat and humidity out there. We are building for the permanent garrison.

Sir T. Moore: Apart from all that, as I, unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), have had


the privilege of serving with a component part of this distinguished regiment, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the regiment will be happy to serve the Queen in any of her Dominions to which they are sent?

Mr. Soames: I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Paton: Give the hon. Member another medal.

Mr. Strachey: While I do not suggest it is worse for one unit than another to serve there, will not the right hon. Gentleman show more concern about conditions in Aden, unless he can deny all these reports which we have all heard about the extremely unsatisfactory accommodation? Cannot he tell us something about that? Surely air conditioning can be introduced even in temporary accommodation? It is perfectly possible to air condition huts. We should like some reassurance that drastic action of some sort is being taken.

Mr. Soames: Yes. I was asked whether I would do something to improve conditions. There are quite a lot of things I should like to do to improve conditions in Aden, I quite agree, but I cannot do anything about the heat and the humidity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Air conditioning."] As to the accommodation itself, I gave a detailed Answer to one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends a fortnight ago on the programmes which were going forward and which included a considerable programme for air conditioning of temporary accommodation.

Mr. Ross: As one who has served with the other part of the R.H.F. and has also been to Aden recently, may I ask whether it would not have been far better if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) had told my hon. Friend that there is no question of anyone of the R.H.F. paying £21 a week for any house because they are not going to be in houses? The actual fact is they are not going to be in houses but are going to be in tents or huts, and no one is going to be housed in a decent fashion befitting either the H.L.I. or the R.H.F. —in that order—until August next year.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman was referring to some married families, not, I think, to the troops themselves.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There was a statement made in another place. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, and as my constituents are so much affected, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

F.N. Rifle

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in equipping units of the British Army with the F.N. rifle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: Production is going well and the rifle has been issued to all infantry battalions. Issue to other units has begun and will be completed throughout the Army early in 1961.

Mr. Hall: Does my right hon. Friend think it likely that he will be able to persuade the West German forces to take this rifle?

Mr. Soames: That supplementary question is very wide of the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Strachey: But would the right hon. Gentleman at any rate make some effort to see that ammunition is standardised, because the really alarming thing is that now we should be told that there is no standardisation even of small arms ammunition in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Soames: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not arise out of this Question. I would advise him to put down a Question about the German army to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Ex-Service Men (Employment)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an instruction to all head postmasters that ex-Service men should be given priority for employment on delivery work in the Post Office.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): It is already Post Office practice to give preference for employment as regular postmen to ex-Service men with a minimum of five years' regular service.

House of Commons Office (Letters)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that postal staff at the House of Commons date-stamp outgoing letters by hand, involving hundreds of thousands of manually applied date-stamps monthly; what steps he has taken to assess the wastage of labour; and, having regard to the near uniformity of House of Commons envelopes, whether he will consult with Her Majesty's Stationery Office to arrange complete uniformity of envelopes for letterheads, followed by complete mechanisation of date stamping.

Miss Pike: The amount of mail handled at the House of Commons Post Office is not far short of the normal standard for provision of a date stamping machine. Accommodation in the post office is, however, limited, and because of the incidence of work at the office any savings of time arising from the introduction of a machine could not be recovered. In consequence, I am satisfied that no change should be made at present.
The lack of uniformity of envelope sizes is a drawback in the field of postal mechanisation generally, but I could not claim that it is a critical hindrance to mechanised date stamping.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that the General Post Office is notoriously reticent in mechanisation programmes—

Mr. Paton: More reticent than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strachey: The expert on reticence.

Mr. Nabarro: —and as now we are all having to pay 3d. for an ordinary letter instead of 2½d., instead of 2d. at an earlier date, would not it be appropriate if my right hon. Friend examined his costs for letters with a view to increasing mechanisation and putting the cost of postage back where it should be, namely, 2d. for an ordinary letter?

Miss Pike: I assure my hon. Friend that we are neither reticent in going forward with and talking about mechanisation nor backward with the schemes which we are pressing forward at present.

Mowmacre Hill, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many residents of Mowmacre Hill, Leicester, and, in particular, the old-age pensioners, are disturbed by his continued refusals to permit a sub-post office to be made available for them there or to allow a person from another sub-post office to attend at a shop there to pay out pensions; and whether he will now take steps to remedy that position, in view of the fact that it imposes an unnecessary burden on the residents.

Miss Pike: I have given the points which the hon. Member makes very full and sympathetic consideration; but, as I have already explained, post office facilities in this area are up to the standard provided in similar areas elsewhere, and I should not be justified in giving the exceptional treatment for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Janner: Is not that a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs? Does not the hon. Lady know that when she opens the new drive-in post office in Leicester she will be handed a document which says:
Improved customer relations are of great importance to the Post Office.
Why not do something for the people who have to walk in and cannot afford to drive into the post office? Whilst not deprecating the idea of a drive-in post office, may I ask whether the hon. Lady will accompany me to see how impossible it is for old-age pensioners to get there? I invite the hon. Lady to do that.

Miss Pike: I have nothing to add to the statement already made. As to customer relations, these are worsened by the sort of persistent arguments which may be brought forward in cases that have been fully explained before.

New Office, Tetbury

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed that the new post office in Tetbury will be completed.

Miss Pike: In 1963.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that that statement will be received with dismay by the people of Tetbury? Is she aware that a large


part of the most valuable buildings in the centre of the town is held by her Department at the moment, producing no rates and "no nothing"? Will she press on with this matter a good deal quicker than the Department is doing at the moment?

Miss Pike: I am sorry that at the moment it is not possible to start any earlier. Other more urgent things must take priority, on the limited capital that we can invest in buildings.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Cars

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to extend the Post Office telephone service for cars to the London area and the Home Counties.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I cannot yet say. But if, as I hope, the pilot scheme in South Lancashire proves successful, I would plan to extend it to other districts as soon as the necessary transmitting stations can be established.

Mr. Channon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that the sooner this can be done in this area the better, because it will fulfil a very urgent need and be very welcome?

Mr. Bevins: I think we have first to see whether the South Lancashire experiment is a successful one and whether it is economic, but, in the expectation of that, we are making certain preliminary plans for London, the Midlands and West Yorkshire.

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the installation cost and the annual fee payable by car owners who wish to install telephones in their cars under the Post Office new scheme.

Mr. Bevins: The radio equipment in customers' cars is supplied directly by the manufacturers, and the charge is a matter for the parties concerned. The radio licence fee is £7 10s. a quarter. This is based on the costs met by the Post Office in the construction and maintenance of the radio stations and associated equipment.

Local Calls (Accounts)

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that on telephone accounts it is extremely difficult to check details of local calls made; and whether, in future, he will ensure that full details appear on such accounts.

Mr. Bevins: It would not be possible to give full details as my hon. Friend suggests. More than 3,500 million local calls are made annually. The charges for each line are recorded on a meter at the exchange and only the total of chargeable units for each line is known.

Mr. Channon: While appreciating the difficulties of this, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the method of presenting Post Office accounts at the moment is one which very often causes general dissatisfaction—

Mr. Ross: Which is getting worse.

Mr. Channon: —because people do not feel they have any method of checking whether they have or have not made the calls they are alleged to have made? I wonder if my right hon. Friend will look into this to see if something can be done.

Mr. Bevins: There may be some little dissatisfaction with telephone accounts, especially their amounts, of course, but I do not think it arises largely from charges for local calls. It is for a technical reason that it would not be possible to do as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of inclusive charges to get rid of this immense accounting which is done in connection with local calls?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, that is a suggestion—one of many—I have under consideration.

Desk-Type Telephones, Gloucester (Supplies)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Postmaster-General how many newly-designed desk-type telephones have been delivered in the Gloucester telephone area; and in how many colours.

Mr. Bevins: An initial delivery of eighty has been made to the Gloucester Telephone Area. These are in four


colours: light ivory, topaz yellow, two-tone grey and two-tone green. Further supplies, in the full range of six colours, are now being received from the manufacturers and are being issued.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kershaw: While appreciating the progress now being made, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that these instruments were announced a year ago and that six months ago subscribers in the Gloucester area were being asked to subscribe for them? Is not progress extremely slow? Will my right hon. Friend speed it up in the near future?

Mr. Bevins: Manufacture of these instruments has certainly not been as rapid as we had hoped. I should like to make it clear that production is now in full swing in a very large way and we shall have deliveries throughout the country on a substantial basis very soon.

Mr. Nabarro: They are very good telephones anyway.

Railway Trains

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the investigation into the practicability of installing public telephones on railway trains; and when such a telephone service will be introduced.

Mr. Bevins: The provision of public radiotelephones on railway trains is technically feasible, but the establishment of a satisfactory service would be

STATEMENT OF THE MAIN ITEMS OF BUSINESS TRANSACTED AT THE ST. HELENS POST OFFICE DURING THE TWELVE MONTHLY PERIODS ENDED ON 31ST OCTOBER, 1958 AND 31ST OCTOBER, 1959


I.—Counter Business


Class of Business
Year ended 31st October
Increase or decrease


1958
1959
Number
Percentage


Pensions and Allowances Paid
…
111,122
115,866
+ 4,744
+ 4·3


Money Orders Issued and Paid
…
16,961
15,474
- 1,487
- 8·8


Postal Orders Issued and Paid
…
443,798
431,974
- 11,824
- 2·7


Telephone Accounts Paid
…
1,514
1,683
+ 169
+ 11·2


Broadcast Receiving Licences Issued:—


Sound
…
3,506
2,760
- 746
- 21·3


Television
…
5,973
5,996
+ 23
+ ·4


Stamps Sold
…
£736,857
£800,938
+ £64,081
+ 8·7


Unregistered Parcels Posted
…
32,136
 26,104
- 6,032
- 18·8


Registered Letters and Packets Posted
…
36,368
28,616
- 7,942
- 21·3


Registered Parcels Posted
…
2,957
2,620
- 337
- 11·4


Telegrams Accepted
…
4,551
4,039
- 512
- 11·3

very costly. There is not enough evidence of public demand at present to justify expenditure on such a service.

Mr. Clark: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that people would be prepared to pay a considerably increased charge for this facility and that a radiotelephone service would encourage people to travel by rail rather than by road?

Mr. Bevins: I think that part of that supplementary question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I think that I might be allowed to say that in my personal view the demand for this facility is very limited indeed and I do not believe that it would pay.

St. Helens

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a detailed report of the business transacted at the St. Helens Post Office during the twelve months up to the latest convenient date; to what extent this represents an increase in postal, telephone, telegraph, and wireless licence business; and how many pensions are being dealt with there.

Miss Pike: As the full Answer contains a great many figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Briefly, the position is that some classes of business including pensions have increased, some including telegraphs and wireless licences have decreased. The general level of business is a little below that of the previous year.

Following is the Answer:

II. —Postal Business (excluding Christmas period—see Statement III)


Class of Business
Year ended 31st October
Increase or decrease


1958
1959
Number
Percentage


LETTERS, PACKETS AND PARCELS






(a) Posted
…
…
…
…
12,734,267
12,565,658
- 168,609
- 1·3


(b) Delivered
…
…
…
…
12,463,346
13,053,453
+ 590,107
+ 4·7

III.—Postal Business—Christmas Period (13th December-2nd January) only


Class of Business
1957
1958
Increase or decrease


Number
Percentage


LETTER OF PARCELS


Posted
…
…
…
…
…
1,612,598
1,634,364
+ 21,766
+ 1·3

IV.—Telephone and Telegraph Business


Class of Business
Year ended 31st October
Increase or decrease


1958
1959
Number
Percentage


INLAND AND OVERSEAS TELEGRAMS


(a) Accepted*
…
…
…
20,380
20,100
- 280
- 1·4


(b) Delivered
…
…
…
21,480
20,830
- 650
- 3·0


TELEPHONE TRUNK CALLS
…
…
…
556,297
615,833
+ 59,536
+ 10·7


* These figures include all telegrams handled in the St. Helens Telegraph Instrument Room, and not only those accepted at the Head Office counter (shown in Statement I).

Eastbourne

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General how many people are now on the waiting list for telephones at Eastbourne; and how many are sharing lines.

Mr. Bevins: At 30th September last there were 47 applications on the waiting list at Eastbourne and 134 others were under enquiry or in course of being met. The number sharing lines is 2,620, out of a total of 8,754.
During the past twelve months 780 telephones have been provided.

Sir C. Taylor: Is not a figure of over 2,000 people sharing lines a very high proportion compared with other parts of the country?

Mr. Bevins: In fact it is a lower proportion, I regret to say, than in many parts of the country. Even so, as I have

made clear on more than one occasion, it is our policy at the Post Office to give people free choice whether to have an independent or shared line as quickly as possible.

Sir C. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General when he anticipates being able to install an automatic telephone exchange in Eastbourne and the surrounding sub-exchanges.

Mr. Bevins: I expect to introduce automatic working at Eastbourne towards the end of 1964. The adjacent manual exchange at Hampden Park is due for conversion in 1962.

Mr. Nabarro: Just in time for the next election.

Sir C Taylor: Do not all the replies we have had from the Postmaster-General suggest that he should take some advice from private enterprise on this nationalised industry?

Mr. Bevins: I think that my hon. Friend realises that the Postmaster-General is subject to capital investment control like several of my right hon. Friends.

Private Firm (Services)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General what facilities have been granted to the Information Exchange for General Post Office Telephone Subscribers, a private concern claiming to offer certain services to persons whose names have been selected from the General Post Office Directory; and what inquiries he has had respecting this firm and its invitation to join their scheme by payment of £6 5s. after £25 has been earned by utilising the telephone according to their instructions.

Mr. Bevins: No special facilities have been asked for and none have been provided. Several inquiries have been received from recipients of the Information Exchange circulars. We have made it clear to them that the Post Office has neither sponsored nor supported the scheme.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this rather strange concern is liable to mislead a good number of people particularly by its name and the financial proposals embodied in its circular? Cannot something be done to acquaint possible subscribers to this dubious concern about what it is actually doing?

Mr. Bevins: Several hon. Members from both sides of the House have passed these papers on to me and I have passed them in turn both to the authorities and to my legal advisers, and both have advised me that there are no grounds for legal proceedings. This is a service giving racing intelligence—tips on horses.

Mr. Mason: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his Department will not give encouragement to this private concern in the future?

Mr. Bevins: No encouragement whatsoever has been given. The firm is simply using the telephone.

Kiosks (Wilful Damage)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General to what extent wilful damage to kiosk telephones shows an

increase or decrease over the past five years; and, in particular, what are these figures in respect of the Borough of Leyton.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that separate figures for the Borough of Leyton are not available. In the London Telecommunications Region as a whole, however, the number of cases of wilful damage to kiosks has, unfortunately, increased from 3,300 in 1956 to about 5,400.

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot something be done to affix a device to the kiosk which would emit a loud noise whenever the installation was being damaged?

Mr. Bevins: I will certainly have a look at that suggestion or any others that the hon. Member might put to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Weardale, County Durham (Reception)

Mr. Ainsley: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to improve television reception in Wear-dale, County Durham.

Mr. Bevins: Weardale is one of many small areas where reception is poor because of the lie of the land. I understand that the B.B.C. will bear in mind the needs of Weardale in planning further stations.
The I.T.A. has not yet completed its main network and it tells me that it cannot yet make firm plans for filling gaps in its coverage.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this is not a small area confined to Weardale? It also touches the Teesdale area, where there are a great number of villages and where industry still prevails. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the annual licence, people in the area pay an annual fee to a private company and also 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week so that they may have reasonable reception? Will he seek to remove this anomaly, otherwise I shall have to bring these people into the London area to obtain social justice or Tory freedom?

Mr. Bevins: I referred to Weardale in my Answer because the Question in turn referred to Weardale, but, short of


building a new transmitter, there is no way in which the B.B.C. could improve reception in the area generally. I believe that I.T.A. is likely to start very soon on building a new station in Carlisle which it believes may well help reception in that area.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in County Durham generally are extremely pleased that they now see twice as many programmes as they did ten years ago?

Advertising Advisory Committee

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General if he will amend the rules as to advertisements with a view to strengthening the Advertising Advisory Committee in order to fulfil the purposes of Schedule 2 of the Television Act, 1954.

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The Advertising Advisory Committee is appointed by the I.T.A. under the Television Act, and is concerned with standards of advertising conduct. Section 4 (3) of the Act places the duty on the Authority to secure that the provisions of the Second Schedule —which in this context relate to the amount and frequency of advertising—are observed.

Mr. Mason: But is not the Postmaster-General aware that this Committee has met only three times in the past twelve months? In view of the number of advertisements on I.T.A. and the viewing time they take up, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these few meetings are totally inadequate? Further, is he aware that of the fourteen members of this Committee only one represents viewers' and consumers' interests? Should not that section of the Committee be strengthened?

Mr. Bevins: The Committee is perfectly entitled to meet as frequently as it likes, although it has met on only three occasions in the last twelve months. This Committee is concerned solely with giving advice on the form and presentation of advertising, but the rules to which the hon. Member refers govern the quantity of advertising that may be shown. As to the composition of the Committee, I think that the hon. Member will find that although the advertising world, quite rightly, is represented on this Committee,

there are many gentlemen outside the advertising sphere also on it.

Mr. Mason: But surely the Minister must take responsibility in this respect? Has he never watched I.T.A. and seen some of the shocking advertisements, particularly of Surf, Daz, Tide and Omo, which are slung across the dining table every time one sits down to an evening meal, and should not something be done to try to raise the standard of these advertisements?

Mr. Bevins: I know there is a little disquiet in some quarters about this matter. The I.T.A. has recently appointed an officer, not from the advertising world, to give his time to advertising control and to liaison work with the programme companies.

B.B.C. (Sound Services)

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General what representations have been made to him from the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the development of its sound services and particularly extensions of local broadcasting; and if he will make a statement on this projected development.

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C. is continuing to develop and extend its very high frequency sound services which are now available to 96·4 per cent. of the population. The Corporation tells me that it has also been studying a plan to provide V.H.F. stations for local broadcasting, but it has not yet put any definite proposals to me. Any such proposals will need careful consideration.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman must obviously have the full review in mind. Will he assure the House that the voices of pressure groups now developing for the purpose of getting licences for commercial sound broadcasting will fall upon a deaf ear until the full review has taken place?

Mr. Bevins: The question of commercial sound television does not arise out of this Question, which is confined to the proposals of the B.B.C.

Mr. Short: In considering this matter will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the north-east of England is still the only area in the British Isles without its own medium wave length


and that we are still sharing with Northern Ireland? If another medium wave length becomes available, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we have the first claim on it?

Mr. Bevins: I am sure that is being borne in mind.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that if he does give concessions to commercial sound radio it will completely thwart the V.H.F. development of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Bevins: That would involve a major departure from existing broadcasting policy and clearly would have to be reviewed within the whole context of future broadcasting.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my right hon. Friend refrain from giving any undertaking that the State monopoly in sound broadcasting should continue for ever?

Mr. Bevins: I have given no such undertaking.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But did not the Postmaster-General give an undertaking that there would be no change in policy before this House had an opportunity to discuss the matter?

Mr. Bevins: I said there would be no major change of the kind envisaged by certain hon. Gentlemen until the future of television and broadcasting has been adequately reviewed.

Pay-as-you-view Systems

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Postmaster-General what comparative examination he has made of existing systems of pay-as-you-view television.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. I have been informed about a number of these systems, but field trials would be necessary to assess their comparative merits.

Mr. Mayhew: But might there not be many advantages in the system if it works, and is it not a good plan to experiment and to examine the system now before we take decisions about the future development of television?

Mr. Bevins: That is one point of view, but a decision on whether a further television programme should take the form of subscription television raises very wide

issues of broadcasting policy and, as I have indicated, this would have to be settled before we could take a decision in principle one way or the other.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that such a system would be less than generous to the Labour Party political broadcasts?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

R.A.F. Station, Valley (Civilian Transport Workers)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many civilian transport workers are being declared redundant at the Royal Air Force Station, Valley; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We had a surplus of nine driven, but most of them have been found other work. We shall probably have to discharge three.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is extremely discouraging when Government Departments create redundancies in an area where there is a high level of unemployment, and will he look at the matter again to see what he can do to keep these men at work and, indeed, to create more work for the unemployed men in the district, as there are no alternative sources of employment?

Mr. Ward: We are still trying to find work for the other three men, but I am afraid that the prospects do not look very good at the moment. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that we envisage this airfield playing an important part in our long-term plans.

Retired Officers (Aircraft Industries)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air under what regulations and conditions retired officers are prevented from entering aircraft industries upon retirement from the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: Under Queen's Regulations, a senior officer is required to seek Air Ministry approval if, within two years of retiring, he wishes to accept an appointment with a firm having, for example,


contractual relationship with the Government. This is in accordance with the White Paper issued in 1937.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say if any senior officers have been prevented from taking up such an appointment recently, and would he bear in mind that with so few military orders being given to the industry, many senior officers could be of great help in getting export orders? Would he interpret the Regulations very broadly in view of the present circumstances?

Mr. Ward: I have every sympathy with what my hon. Friend has in mind. Unfortunately, in these matters the public interest and that of the individual may sometimes lie in different directions, and we have to reach the fairest decision we can in all the circumstances of each case.

Senior Officers (Speeches)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements he makes to examine the scripts of proposed speeches by senior officers of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: Under Queen's Regulations, a serving officer must seek permission, normally from the Air Ministry, before making a public speech on Air Force, naval or military subjects, and submit a script of what he proposes to say.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the Minister say what are the criteria by which the scripts are passed by him, and under what circumstances are they referred to the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Ward: The organisation within my Department is normally that broadcasting material is cleared through the Chief Information Officer, and that scripts of speeches by very senior officers come to me. Under the most recent directive of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, if speeches have a bearing on major defence policy, I shall send them on to him.

Thor Missiles

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Air what recent official exchange of views has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Administration on declaring the Thor missiles in this

country operational; and whether he will make a statement.

Wing-Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Thor missile.

Mr. Ward: As a result of the test firings which have taken place in the United States, and in the light of the progress made in the training programme, we are now satisfied that Thor is able to take its place as part of the operational front-line of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not desirable to resist any declarations as to our additional military preparedness, alleged or real, at a time when we are trying to relax tensions in preparation for the Summit Conference?

Mr. Ward: I think it has been known for some time that this weapon has been rapidly developing to a point at which it is operational.

Wing Commander Bullus: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a good example of the value of close Anglo-American co-operation, particularly in defence matters?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, I quite agree. I also think it is a remarkable fact that it is less than four years since the Douglas Aircraft Corporation started work on this brand new concept.

Mr. de Freitas: Has there been any change in the regulations and conditions governing the custody and positioning of the nuclear warheads, as has been reported in the Press?

Mr. Ward: No, Sir.

Mr. Mason: Is it not a fact that the initial delivery of the missiles was regarded as non-operational, since many of them came here before they were proved to be 100 per cent. successful? Can the Minister state emphatically that the missiles on pads in this country are fully operational?

Mr. Ward: I have said that the Thor missile will now take its place in the operational front-line of the R.A.F.

Air Traffic Control

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking


to co-operate with the other military and civil aviation authorities in Europe in establishing an automatic electronic system of air traffic control to reduce the risk of collision of military and civil aircraft especially at high altitude.

Mr. Ward: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on 30th November and 7th December. My Department is fully associated with the studies to which he referred.

Mr. de Freitas: It is because those two replies were so unsatisfactory that I pursued this question. If the Minister of Defence does not know with what countries outside N.A.T.O. the discussions are concerned, surely the Secretary of State for Air can tell me what countries with military aircraft in Western Europe outside N.A.T.O. he is attempting to associate with the discussions?

Mr. Ward: This is really a matter in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is taking the lead, and my Department is merely associated with the studies. I should much prefer it if the hon. Gentleman would address that question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. de Freitas: Would the Secretary of State have a look, with the Minister of Aviation, at the replies he has given me, to see whether the points are really covered and whether this organisation is to be both civil and military?

Aircraft Engines (Noise)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he is taking to reduce the noise caused by aeroengines on the ground and in the air.

Mr. Ward: My Department is closely associated with the research being undertaken by the Ministry of Aviation into methods of suppressing engine noise. I am afraid that no easy or early solution to this problem can be expected. In the meantime, we try to plan the programme of flying and the running of engines on the ground so as to reduce disturbance as much as possible.

Mr. de Freitas: So far as noise on the ground during testing and so on is concerned, can the Secretary of State say that the Royal Air Force has at least as good facilities for suppressing this noise as B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.?

Mr. Ward: I think so. The task now is to get them better, and to conduct research for the future. In these matters we are working very closely with the Americans, who are making certain experiments, and also with the Ministry of Aviation, which is undertaking other experiments.

Mr. de Freitas: Of course, I want it to get better and to look to the future, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the facilities at present at the Royal Air Force bases are at least as good as those of the two Corporations?

Mr. Ward: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about such things as silencing pens, I should like notice of that, as I am not sure what is the position. I doubt whether our facilities are quite as good as the Corporations'. We have many more airfields to cover. Wherever possible, however, the testing and running-up are done away from inhabited places.

Aircraft Patrols (Hydrogen Bombs)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air in what circumstances aircraft operating from Royal Air Force airfields are allowed to patrol over this country carrying hydrogen bombs.

Mr. Ward: There has been no change in the arrangements described to the House last year by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and by the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL BALLET COMPANY (TOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that a South African dancer of non-European descent is prevented by South African law from taking part in the Royal Ballet's forthcoming tour of South Africa; and if he will instruct the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations to consider the possibility of cancelling the provision of funds for this tour;
(2) if he is aware that a South African dancer of non-European descent is prevented by South African law from taking part in the Royal Ballet's forthcoming South African tour; and, in view of the damaging effect of such incidents upon


relations between the two Governments, whether he will make representations on the matter to the Prime Minister of the Union.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
Any rules or practices affecting ballet performances in the Union of South Africa are of course a matter for the Union authorities. In the light of these, it was for the Royal Ballet Company to decide the composition of the party which is to visit the Union of South Africa.
No official funds have been provided for this visit, but the British Council has given a small contingent guarantee against loss.
I understand that arrangements for the visit are well advanced and, in the circumstances, I see no reason for intervention by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Driberg: Did the right hon. Gentleman note the references from both sides of the House in Monday night's debate to the arts and sport, with particular reference to the M.C.C.'s tour as well as this Ballet tour, and was no protest at all made against this particular example and illustration of the folly and wickedness of apartheid?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I did notice the references in the debate. It was for the Royal Ballet Company to decide the composition of the party. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's other points. I do not see on this occasion, in view of that decision, any reason for Government intervention.

Mr. Driberg: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has not answered the latter part of Question No. 46. While I fully accept that the Prime Minister has said that he regards private conversations as unsuitable for public statements, can we take it, none the less, that the Prime Minister will discuss this kind of thing with the Prime Minister of the Union? I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reply.

Mr. Butler: I cannot give any such undertaking because this matter has in fact been decided by the Royal Ballet Company—it is its decision—and I do

not think there is a case, as I have said, for intervention by the United Kingdom Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the incursion of politics into the realms of sport and music wears the aspect of totalitarianism and at all costs is to be resisted by this country?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the introduction of racial discrimination into art and sport is thoroughly repugnant to all of us? May I ask him this? I understand that he is saying that this is not a matter for the Government because the Government are not financing this tour, but is it not the case that the Royal Ballet Company is dependent on a very substantial subsidy from the Arts Council, and can the Government really escape all responsibility for this? Did any conversations take place between the Treasury, for instance, and the ballet company and the Arts Council about this matter.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Royal Ballet Company took this decision without any official intervention at all. That is a reason why I do not think that United Kingdom Government intervention is called for. The company took its decision against the background of the situation in which this company was going to perform and we have had no cause to intervene.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the policy of apartheid is an internal South African matter?

Hon. Members: Is it?

Mr. Williams: It is, indeed, and in fact hostile criticism from this country very often does considerably more harm in changing policy than silence.

Mr. Mayhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these difficulties arose after the decision of the British Council to guarantee the company against loss and whether any opportunity has been given to the Executive Committee of the British Council to reconsider its view in the light of these difficulties?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly investigate the exact chronology so as to give an exact answer on the question of timing.


My information up to date is that the British Council does not want to review its decision to guarantee against loss this particular tour which I think may do a great deal of good.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that progressive forces in South Africa would welcome the Government taking a very much firmer line against apartheid than they are taking?

Mr. Butler: I think that constitutional authorities throughout the world would regard it as a great mistake for one Government to intervene in the internal affairs of another Government.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the country as a whole is most content to leave this to the wisdom and judgment of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not, as it happens, a matter of interfering in the internal affairs of South Africa? It is a question of whether a company which is guaranteed against loss on this particular tour, and which is heavily subsidised by the Government, should undertake a tour under those conditions? Will he please look into the matter further to see whether the Arts Council has in fact had discussions with the Royal Ballet Company?

Mr. Butler: There has been no official intervention into the Royal Ballet Company making its decision about the composition of the company to go on this tour. On the general question of whether it is a good thing to undertake this tour, we are informed by our High Commissioner that it would be valuable that this tour should take place—that is, the general conception of the tour. I do not see any further cause for intervention, although I do not deny that the Ballet Company does receive public money.

Mr. Snow: As one of the many hon. Members of this House who try to support the ballet, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the excuse given by the organiser of the ballet that this action was taken to save embarrassment on the part of the dancer in question just will not wash?

Mr. Butler: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Nuclear Propulsion

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport his estimate of the period which will elapse before a nuclear-propelled merchant ship or warship could be commissioned, on the assumption that the order for a reactor was placed before the end of 1959.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): This will, to some extent, depend on the type of reactor chosen, but I am advised that, for a merchant ship, it would be at least three or four years.
Nuclear propulsion of warships is the responsibility of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the United States, Japan and Soviet Russia are getting well ahead of us in this important matter, and will my hon. Friend undertake to go into the question so that we can get a nuclear-propelled ship commissioned at sea as soon as possible?

Mr. Hay: Yes, Sir. We are very concerned about this matter. The immediate object of getting a ship to sea is to gain experience. If we are to get full value from the experiment, it must be a ship economic to operate, compared with a conventionally-powered one. I think that it would be better to investigate carefully before taking a plunge in this matter and that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister expect the prototype to be economic?

Mr. Hay: The Question simply asked for a date.

Mr. Popplewell: Can the hon. Gentleman intimate when he hopes he will be able to give the order for a reactor, because it is important to our shipping interests at the present moment that they should have an "all clear" in this respect?

Mr. Hay: I cannot intimate a date at the moment, but it will certainly be as soon as we can make it.

Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend? Does he intend that the prototype must be economic?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. Our intention at the moment is to carry out the fullest investigation of the matter to ensure that the prototype, when built, will be economical and that it will lead to a better ship when the time comes to build a fully operative one.

BROUGHTY FERRY LIFEBOAT (LOSS)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With permission, Sir, I would like to make a statement about the loss of the Broughty Ferry lifeboat, "Mona".
About 2.45 a.m. on 8th December, the Broughty Ferry lifeboat was called out by the Fifeness coastguard, who had observed that the North Carr light vessel was off station and seemed to be drifting towards the shore. The weather at the time was severe, with a very heavy sea running. The lifeboat was launched at 3.15 a.m. and radio-telephone communication was established between her and the Fifeness Coastguard Station. Communication was maintained until 5 a.m., after which nothing further was heard from the lifeboat despite repeated calls by the Fifeness coastguard.
The Fifeness Coastguard Station then began a search of the beaches and asked for a helicopter search at daybreak. About 8.45 a.m. the Carnoustie coastguard observed something on the shore near Buddon Ness, on the north side of the Tay Estuary. He immediately advised the helicopter and thereupon took a search party to the spot. They found the lifeboat firmly aground and upright. Seven bodies were recovered, but the body of one member of the crew is missing. The lifeboat seems to have suffered only minor damage.
The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has begun an inquiry into the cause of this tragic accident, and I am sure that the House will wish me to express its deepest sympathy with the families of all the brave men who lost their lives.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I

join him in his expression of sympathy for the families which have suffered bereavement and his tribute to the gallantry of my constituents who went out and gave their lives to try to save the crew of the lightship?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the latest position is with regard to the lightship and its crew, and what steps he will take to assist the inquiry into the cause of the accident and to give any practical assistance to the families of those who lost their lives?

Mr. Marples: The lastest information I have about the North Carr lightship is that she broke away from her normal moorings and that she then apparently used her own anchors and is now riding at anchor about one mile from the shore, at Kingsbarns. I have just heard that all the crew were taken off by helicopter at 1.35 p.m. today.
The dependants will be paid pensions on the scale applicable to chief petty officers on Royal Navy active service. The pensions will be paid by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
The normal procedure is that there is an inquiry by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, on the ground that lifeboats are a highly specialised type of craft. I think that we had better await the result of the Institution's inquiry. If the Institution asks me for any assistance, it will certainly be given.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not more than two hours ago I was informed from Fife that the lightship is, as he said, off the rocks at Kingbarns, that only one line is holding the vessel from being swept right on to the rocks and that the lives of eight men are at stake, and—

Hon. Members: The men have been taken off.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I am very glad to hear that. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can tell what is the latest position and what action is being taken.

Mr. Marples: A great deal of action has been taken. I should like to make it clear that the information which I have is that the whole of the crew were taken off by helicopter at 1.35 p.m., so the question of lives does not enter into it.


What happened was that the lighthouse tender "Pharos" and the naval tug "Earner" went to assist the lightship. Unsuccessful attempts were made during yesterday afternoon and this morning to get a line on board the light vessel and these attempts were continued. The life-saving apparatus company from Craill was standing by on the foreshore all yesterday and remained there with its equipment loaded and ready. The crucial point is, however, that the men have been taken off by helicopter.

Mr. Strachey: As, the representative of the neighbouring constituency, I would associate myself with the deep sympathy which has been expressed towards those bereaved by this terrible accident, and I am sure that the whole House feels likewise.
May we be assured that, while no doubt it may be best to leave the inquiry to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, in this very grave case the result of the inquiry will be made public in due course, because this is, after all, something in which the national interest is deeply involved?
May we be told whether this lightship, as I believe is the case with some others, was without an engine and was herself, therefore, powerless in the circumstances, and whether, if that is so, this is not a matter of some concern?

Mr. Marples: The inquiry is a matter for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I have no doubt that it will take notice of the right hon. Gentleman's words. I think that, generally, the Institution has published its reports when it has finished its inquiries. I think that we had better let it makes its report.
I believe that the North Carr lightship did not have an engine, but I should not like to be too certain about that.

Mr. G. R. Howard: As a member of the Committee of Management of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, I should like to associate myself with the expression of sympathy which has been so ably expressed by our President.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the District Inspector of Lifeboats was at Dundee yesterday afternoon, that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Lifeboats is there at this moment and that there is also present an official with full powers to pay out any moneys that may be necessary for the immediate needs of the dependants of those who lost their lives in this terrible disaster?

Mr. Marples: I think that the whole House would like to express its obligation and gratitude to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which has moved so quickly and so generously.

Mr. Benn: Without in any way disputing—indeed, we all accept it—the wonderful work that the Institution has done, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what his statutory responsibilities are in the event of a disaster of this kind and how he proposes to discharge them in co-operation with the Institution?

Mr. Marples: The statutory responsibility is that under the Merchant Shipping Acts I could, if I wanted to do so, hold a preliminary inquiry, but in view of the excellent work done with this specialised type of craft by the Institution, I think that it would be wrong for a Minister to take that action and that at this stage of the proceedings it should be left to the Institution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Local Employment Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th December].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 5.—(DERELICT, ETC. LAND.)

3.40 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after "Board", to insert:
(whether on the representation of the council of any county, county borough, or county district, or the development corporation of any new town in which the land or a part thereof is situated or otherwise)".
With this Amendment I want also to move the Amendment in page 4, line 32, at the end to add:
(5) This section shall apply to the development corporation of a new town as it applies in England to the council of a county and in Scotland to a local authority, as defined for the purposes of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady cannot move the second Amendment now, although it can be discussed with the first.

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry, Sir Gordon, I understood that they were to be discussed together.

The Chairman: Yes, but the hon. Lady can move only one at a time.

Mrs. Hart: The intention of the first Amendment is perfectly clear. It is a very important, if minor, Amendment and I hope that it will be accepted. Its intention is to give some initiative to local authorities in localities where there is high unemployment to make representations to the Board of Trade. Without such permission, the position will be very difficult. The implication of the Clause as now drafted is that, on its own knowledge of derelict or unsightly land in localities all over the country, the Board of Trade will exercise its powers in those localities where there is high unemployment.
Two points emerge. The first is that the Board will not know where all such land is. The Bill implies that the Board will have available the staff to carry out wide-scale surveys of every locality with

high unemployment, in Scotland, Wales, Northern England, or anywhere else.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. I do not know whether you can hear my hon. Friend, Sir Gordon, but I cannot hear her because of the noise which is coming from hon. Members opposite. We know that hon. Members opposite think that this Amendment is a nuisance, but they need not make it quite so obvious.

The Chairman: I could hear what the hon. Lady was saying, but there was some noise and I hope that hon. Members will be quiet.

Mrs. Hart: The implication of the Clause as it stands is that through wide-scale surveys of every locality where unemployment is threatened, imminent, or already excessive, the Board will know where derelict or unsightly land is and whether it could be brought into use or improved. That means that the Board would need a considerable increase in staff to tackle the job adequately.
Another implication is that in all these cases the Board will act on its own initiative. It seems to me, as it must seem to many hon. Members in whose constituencies there is unemployment, that there are sites known to local people and local authorities which could be used for industrial purposes and where something needs to be done. Unless the Amendment is accepted, local people will have to wait patiently for the Board to send one of its officials to survey the land and make recommendations and then wait a very long time before the task is tackled effectively.
The Amendment permits local authorities to inform the Board that such land is available, that there is an unemployment problem in the locality, that the locality is covered by the Bill, and that the land could usefully be improved and perhaps put to industrial purposes. That is all the Amendment says. It is very important that local authorities should be given the power to make those representations to the Board.
I refer the Minister of State to the words of one of his colleagues, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who, on 23rd October, when speaking outside the House about the general issue


of overspill, deployment and planning, said:
For all its difficulties, I believe in this idea of seeking to attract industry and people to smaller towns which find themselves in danger of losing their young people and dying in a backwater unless they rouse themselves to a big step forward.
Unless the Amendment is accepted it will not be possible for such small towns to rise to the challenge put to them by the right hon. Gentleman. Some right of making representations to the Board must be given to local authorities.
The Amendments also seek to include development corporations. I have three brief comments to make about this issue. First, it is quite possible for there to be derelict and unsightly land within the areas covered by a new town development corporation, particularly when, as usually happens, a new town is built around the nucleus of an old village. Such land could be suitably used for industrial purposes.
Secondly, since that is so and since development corporations are in many respects quasi-local authorities which have taken over many of the more important planning functions of local authorities, it is particularly important that they should not be excluded from the Bill. That is why we seek to include them in these Amendments.
The Secretary of State for Scotland may have already received representations from new town development corporations in Scotland. It may be that his Department in St. Andrew's House has had discussions with them. I think that they would be very grateful for a clear statement of the Minister's intentions and even more grateful for an assurance that they will not be left out of the Bill, especially since—and this is the third comment—the employment problem in new towns, not only in Scotland but all over the country, will be very acute in the years to come.
We are inclined to think of the new towns as ideal communities in which there are not only houses, but jobs for everybody. Until now, that has been largely true in most new towns, but we must remember that the unique age structure of the populations of all our new towns makes it inevitable that there will be an acute crisis in employment as the years go on. In almost all the new

towns between 60 and 70 per cent. of the population are less than forty years of age, which means that it will be twenty or twenty-five years before most men in the new towns consider retirement. Long before then, the new generation of children, of whom there are now thousands in the new towns, will have grown up and be demanding jobs.
We can estimate that between half and three-fifths of the populations of all new towns are now children or teen-agers. I have worked out a rough estimate of what the figure is likely to be over the next ten to fifteen years in all the new towns. I estimate that about 120,000 new jobs will he needed for the young people in the new towns during the next ten to fifteen years.
This is an immense problem and it is, therefore, all the more important that new towns should not be excluded from the Bill, perhaps by an unwitting omission to mention development corporations in the Clause. For those reasons, I ask the Government to give careful consideration to the Amendment and to accept it and its implications.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who comes from Lancashire and knows how we suffer from the problem which she has raised. I am glad that the Minister of State is sitting on the Front Bench today, because no area in the country has more derelict sites than the area from Stoke-on-Trent to Kids-grove along the main railway line between Euston and London Road, Manchester. On the right hand side of the line there are miles of derelict land. The land was used before I was born and has been left derelict for thirty years. It is a disgraceful eyesore and no one is prepared to do anything about it.
For more than twenty years I have been pleading for that land to be tidied up. When I read in the Bill that the Board of Trade proposed to clear all derelict land I was delighted. I join my hon. Friend in pleading with the Minister, "Do not let us stonewall on this like we did yesterday. Let us try to make quicker progress by the Minister being prepared to give way on reasonable Amendments." This proposal is a reasonable one. I think that we have


already won the good will of the Secretary of State. Perhaps he would be prepared to ask the officials who advise him whether the Amendment would mean very much to him. The bottom has been knocked out of the ultimatum on the timetable and good will now prevails in the Committee. We are all working together to improve the Bill. Let us continue to work that way.
My hon. Friend made a most reasoned speech. She pleaded for the maximum co-operation between all local authorities and we must have the Amendment in the Bill to guarantee that. I am very pleased to associate myself with the Amendment and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Dan Jones: I support the Amendment. In my constituency there are unsightly rubbish tips that have been created by rubbish from the mines. Not only are they unsightly, but they smell horribly.
Citizens in the vicinity of those tips are complaining about the discolouration of their skins and the discolouration of metals in their homes. We hope that engineering will be among the new industries that will come to Burnley. If it is, it may be that industrialists will object to stabilising their industries in areas where the smell is almost overpowering and metals become discoloured. They will not take very kindly to that. I have to admit that I have no concrete medical evidence of the effect of those pits on health, but it is reasonable to suppose that if discolouration of the skin takes place it can be of little assistance in maintaining or improving health.
It ought to be possible to level out those unsightly pits. Equally, it should be possible to neutralise the vicious smells. If that were done Burnley could breathe more freely and sites would be available for both industrial and recreational purposes.
If the Amendment was not accepted it would mean that before these necessary reforms could be carried out there would have to be a high level of employment. At the moment, that would not affect Burnley. On previous occasions I have referred to depopulation in Burnley and to the anxiety about the closure of mills. I have also mentioned the tremendous contribution that the people of Burnley

have made to the industrial and economic well being of our nation for about 150 years. Surely it is not asking too much that those unsightly and horrid smelling tips should be removed.
For those reasons I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has said, and I support the Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) hoped that my right hon. Friend would not stonewall. There is no need for my right hon. Friend to do that. There is no need for any circumlocution. I do not think that the Amendment is necessary. I appreciate the clear way in which the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) put forward the reason for the Amendment, but the Clause as it stands provides what the Opposition are asking for. Clause 5 says:
…where it appears to the board …
All that the hon. Lady is asking for is:
whether on the representation of the council …
or otherwise.
The Board can make such a decision whether on representation from local authorities or otherwise, which is what the hon. Lady is asking for. The Amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. Where there is high unemployment local authorities are not slow in coming forward with their representations. At the present, there are no legal restrictions which would prevent local authorities from making their representations to the Board.
For those reasons, I do not think that the Amendment is necessary.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: When the Cotton Industry Bill was being discussed, I supported an Amendment to do what the Bill now proposes to do. The then President of the Board of Trade said that the Cotton Industry Bill was not a suitable Bill for the kind of Amendment that we proposed. He sympathised with us and gave us an undertaking that he would seriously consider the point that we put forward.
When the right hon. Gentleman went to Manchester during the General Election he promised that there would be


provision in a new Bill for the removal of derelict buildings. At that time it was pointed out that under the old Distribution of Industry Acts and what has become known as the D.A.T.A.C. Act powers existed to enable local authorities to remove derelict buildings and clear sites.
The criterion was always one of employment, just as it is in Clause 1 (2). The only concession we have here is the insertion of one or two words, such as "imminent". At that time I brought forward evidence of the situation in my constituency, consisting of a series of photographs taken along a stretch of canal and railway. Anyone looking at them would realise that they represent a history of the nineteenth century philosophy, "Where there's muck there's brass", but as generation has succeeded generation, and new properties have been needed for modern industries, these buildings, which are quite substantial—some having been put up before the Crimean war and many others before the turn of the century—have become mere shells cluttering up the landscape. They should be removed.
Not all the factors which affect a constituency like mine have been explored in this debate or the previous ones. In a constituency like mine, which has many old buildings which have been relinquished or cannot be used because of Government action, it is impossible to present a true picture of the difficulties simply by using the criterion of the number of people unemployed. Perhaps I can give an illustration. The iniquitous Cotton Act, passed last Session, had the effect of closing 22 factories in the area served by the unemployment exchange in my constituency.
The factories have been closed, the machinery has been removed or scrapped, but the shells remain. Very few of those buildings are of any use for modern industry. The lay-out was designed specially to suit a particular industry, and it is not suitable for the newer industries, such as those growing up in the new towns. That means there is a drift away from these areas, and they are becoming neglected. People have to move out of the district or travel long distances to find employment. The figures for the period between 1954 and 1958—and they are the only ones avail-

able—show that 5,000 people have gone off the books of the employment exchange in my constituency to find work elsewhere.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is straying from the Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: If that is so I will bring my argument back to it by saying that if representations can be made by a local authority to the powers that be concerning the conditions existing in constituencies like mine, attention must be paid to the consequences, social and otherwise. The former President of the Board of Trade failed to honour his promise that action would be taken in some Bill or other, and to some extent the Amendment will help in this direction.
If it is true that to achieve maximum productivity we must make best use of the amount of floor space—and I am bang on the Amendment here—the neglect of such conditions as I have described means that insufficient capital investment is going into industry at present.

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: All right, Sir Gordon.
The derelict buildings mentioned in the Amendment can be seen by the Board of Trade if it will look at these photographs, which I now hand across the Table. There are about 20 photographs, and to any intelligent person they tell their own story of neglect by previous Governments to clean up an economic scandal in this generation. If we cannot have clean workshops, and cannot utilise floor space in the best possible way, how can we tolerate the misuse of land the continued existence of the kind of buildings shown in the photographs?
I appeal to the Government to give us a chance, or the population will continue to drift away. If, instead of money being poured out on projects like that provided for in the Cotton Act, a few million pounds were devoted to this job it would give heart and hope to the people living in these areas.

Mr. James Dempsey: There are certain reasons for the wording of the Amendment. One


of the main ones is that owing to the lack of assistance from the Board of Trade since 1951 some local authorities have made efforts to induce industrialists to come to their localities. They felt that if some sites were tidied up arid reasonable services were provided they would have a better chance of attracting industrialists than if they merely tried to get them to build on empty fields.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was correct in saying that the provisions already contained in the Bill are sufficient to meet the point of the Amendment. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to satisfy our curiosity on this point. Under the Distribution of Industry Act provision was made for local authorities to receive grants, but no fixed percentages were laid down.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but that argument does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I understand that we are dealing with the question of putting land into use and granting powers to local authorities.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Dempsey: I understand that we are dealing with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), which would add to the Clause references to local authorities in new towns. I am trying to confine myself to the earlier part of the Amendment, referring to local authorities.

The Chairman: The Amendment deals with representations by local authorities.

Mr. Dempsey: When we make representations as local authorities we expect sympathetic consideration and, indeed, that we shall receive aid. That is my point. Grant aid exists under existing legislation and I am wondering whether it is the intention of the Minister to continue that practice under the new legislation. If the Minister would say that it is, it might have the effect of shortening discussion on this matter.
The Minister should tell us that local authorities can make representations and that when they do they will receive the same consideration as they have received

under the previous legislation. I have in my hand a letter indicating that one local authority received such consideration. As the result of representations made to the Board of Trade, it received a 75 per cent. grant to bring disused land into service. If other local authorities make representations under the provisions contained in this Bill, will they receive the same consideration? I should like the Minister to clarify that point.
If it is intended by the word "grant" that such consideration will be given to local authority representations by the Board of Trade, that would go a long way to satisfy some hon. Members in whose constituencies there are eyesores on sites which, otherwise, would have good prospects of development.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The Committee will agree that Clause 5 is of great importance. Its purpose is to deal with the industrial excesses over the last 200 years which have resulted in industrial excrescences being spewed over many areas of our countryside, destroying many of their natural beauties. We believe that attempts to rid the countryside of such eyesores and to reclaim derelict or neglected land would be more successful if the Board of Trade could receive direct representations from county councils, and from large and small burghs and district councils in Scotland. These organisations are trying to alleviate such eyesores in response to representations from local councillors, and, consequently, they are well equipped to assist in this matter. The Amendment seeks to provide this opportunity for local authorities.
In my constituency there are many pit bings which are eyesores and in my opinion local authorities could make important representations about their abolition. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would agree that where there is a colliery district in which coal is no longer being won, as is the case in many parts of Lanarkshire, rescue operations in the area should include not only the infiltration of new industry, but also a "face-lift" by the removal of eyesores of the kind which I have mentioned, excrescences which have been poured out over the last couple of centuries by mining undertakings.


It does not stop at that. Local authority representatives could provide valuable information concerning the reclamation of flooded land in their areas. There are places in my constituency which have become derelict because of the lack of adequate drainage facilities. This Clause makes provision for grants to local authorities through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but would it not be much better if, in connection with grants for the clearing of sites and for dealing with derelict land, the local authorities who will receive the grants could make representations directly to the Board, so that matters might be cleared up more quickly than otherwise might be the case?
There are areas of foreshore which are at present unsuitable for industrial development because of flooding. In some areas the preventive measures against flooding have been hampered because local authorities have not the necessary powers and in some cases because of the lack of money. I think that it would be advisable for the Minister to have a look at this matter, if he does not intend to inform the Committee that he proposes to accept this Amendment, for which a superb case was made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I hope that the Minister will depart from the immovable position which he adopted early this morning and yesterday. I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming and so bring this debate to a speedy conclusion instead of continuing it at such an interminable length as to weary the whole Committee.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who reproved my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) for circumlocution, has now put himself into circulation elsewhere by leaving the Chamber. At any rate, those of us who know him of old recognise him as an expert on circumlocution, and I suggest to the Government that, after so typical an Under-Secretary's speech delivered from the third bench below the Gangway, they ought to think whether they could not withdraw the hon. Member from circulation in debate and at least make him a junior Whip.
The difficulty in many of the areas that will come within the scope of the Bill, and that must be on any list compiled even by this Government, is that when people go to look at a place with the idea of starting a new industry or taking over some existing works, they say to the town clerk or to the chairman of the town development committee that they could not think of starting an industry in a place which so obviously looked as if it were sorry for itself, and had not been able to do anything about it.
That is very true of some parts of Tyneside, and I hope that these words will be included in the Bill, so as to encourage local authorities which are hampered by this derelict land and by old disused buildings like those of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) showed us some photographs in the last Parliament, which photographs, I now understand, he has generously placed at the disposal of the Government. I hope that the Government will be encouraged to take their part in helping the Board to get on with the job of making industrial England the kind of place which it ought and would have been if there had been some concern for local amenities during the first industrial revolution.
The people of this country have suffered so much by the degradation of great national resources that we ought, in the second industrial revolution, to make certain that all the organisations that can be relied upon to try to make modern industry healthy and reasonably enjoyable shall have their chance of making their views known to those people who are to be placed in charge of the redevelopment of these areas. At the moment, these areas must discourage anyone who goes there from believing that he would be able to get key workers and other people to go there to achieve the purpose which we understand is behind this Bill.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to be disturbed by the fact that he will incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Barry by putting a few more words into the Bill, but to have the courage for once to say that he is willing to meet the case that has been so convincingly put forward from this side of the Committee.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman: Mr. Erroll.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I think that it is the wish of the Committee that I should rise at this stage, and I am sorry for preventing from speaking now other hon. Gentlemen who rose at the same time as I did. I rise now because I have been, quite wrongly, accused of adopting a stonewalling attitude.

Mr. William Ross: Obdurate and inflexible.

Mr. Erroll: That is what the hon. Gentleman may think, but I am quite sure that I am not.
The point about the two Amendments now before the Committee is that, if they were necessary, we would certainly include them in the Bill. There is no question of my being a stonewalling Minister at the Dispatch Box just now, because the Bill in its present form covers all the points which are proposed in the two Amendments. The Clause does not, however, necessarily cover all the suggestions made by hon. Members in their interesting speeches, which have tended to include matters which are not relevant to this Bill, and which I will explain in detail in a moment.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman would be out of order.

Mr. Erroll: Of course: it would be out of order.
On the Amendment, which was so ably proposed by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), she might quite well have argued that, if it made no difference, why not put it in? But, of course, it would make a difference, and a difference in a way which, I think, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not necessarily appreciate. If we were to put in the words of the Amendment it would have the effect of restricting the representations which could be made only to those listed in the phrase within the brackets, whereas we do not wish to restrict in any way those bodies which might wish to make representations to the Board. It would obviously be impracticable to list all the possible bodies which might wish to make representations.

We are always receiving representations, and we are glad to do so. The reason why we do not wish to accept the Amendment is that we do not wish to restrict, or appear to restrict, in any way the representations which may be made to us.

Mr. Ede: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the words "or otherwise", at the end of the Amendment, have no meaning at all?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that it is for me to comment on the exact details of the proposed Amendment. I have pointed out that the result of accepting the Amendment would have an effect different from that which is proposed. I do not think that the words "or otherwise" would, in fact, cover properly organised bodies other than those actually listed in the phrase in brackets.
The hon. Lady suggested that her other Amendment which we are also discussing, should apply specifically, by the terms of her Amendment, to the development corporations of new towns. Here again, this is not necessary, because new towns are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate local authorities, who are responsible for the exercise of their normal functions. These authorities are in a position to carry out the works qualifying for grant under this Clause. The hon. Lady might have said that, nevertheless, a new town corporation might wish to do a job for itself. In the unlikely event of this being so, that is, of the development corporation wishing to reclaim derelict land and improve local amenities, the case would be met under the existing legislation, which is the New Towns Act, 1946, which enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make loans to development corporations for capital expenditure.
The same arguments apply to the second point mentioned in her Amendment, but there is the additional point that in the existing new towns, there are virtually no derelict sites. For these reasons, I cannot accept the two Amendments, not because I think they are wrong, but simply because they are unnecessary, and would do nothing to clarify the Clause of the Bill which we are now discussing.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Once again, it is half-past four, and once


again the Minister is saying "No". He is now even refusing to comment on the details of the Amendment, which, I should have thought, was his primary job.
The hon. Gentleman has told us that these Amendments are unnecessary, though I cannot myself see what possible harm would be done if they were inserted in the Bill. He tried to argue, not very convincingly, that they were restrictive, because, if they were accepted, the Minister could not listen to the representations of any other body than those actually named in the Amendment. So far as I understand the English language, the words "or otherwise" appear to me to cover the point, but the hon. Gentleman did not attempt to argue that it was not so.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Did he take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on that?

Mr. Jay: It may well be that before we reach the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", he will do that. I think what my hon. Friends have in mind is not so much whether these precise words, which perhaps might be open to criticism, should be inserted in the Bill, but whether the Board of Trade will actually listen to representations from these organisations and, secondly, and mare important, whether the Board of Trade will use its powers under this Clause decisively.
I think that the Minister of State might shorten the proceedings if he could give us an unqualified assurance that the Board of Trade will listen sympathetically to representations from the organisations mentioned as well, no doubt, as others and, secondly, if he would say it is the intention now to make vigorous use of these powers. Yesterday, the Minister of State gave me a Written Answer, which, incidentally, admits that no projects for clearance of derelict sites were approved by the Government in 1958. That is yet another point that the Government were not using their powers which they claim to need.
After the prolonged agitation which my hon. Friends made on this matter last winter, we stirred the Government into some activity. We are now told that during the present year 38 projects

by local authorities have been approved at an estimated cost of £210,000. Three schemes have been completed and a start made on eight others. Thanks to the efforts of hon. Members on this side of the Committee in pushing the Government along, that is some improvement on last year.
I ask the Minister of State whether he can tell us in which areas those 38 projects are. That would be of great interest to many of my hon. Friends but, more important, can he assure us that this change of heart is to continue and that the Government will really press on with the clearing of these sites in all suitable areas all over the country?

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I am not at all convinced by the argument of the Minister of State that this Amendment would necessarily be a limiting one and that if it were inserted in the Bill it would exclude other organisations.
County borough and county district councils are elected bodies. As such, they already represent all conceivable interests in their areas which are likely to be affected by the Bill. I believe that the Amendment would considerably strengthen the Bill. Although the Board of Trade might be motivated by the best will in the world, and might have the most nearly perfect civil servants in an imperfect world, they cannot see these problems of derelict land, slag heaps, pits and pit heaps as sharply as do local representatives who live in the areas and are answerable to the people who live there. I think that that is a very valid point to make about the Amendment.
I am glad to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs present in the Committee. He will know that on every day when we discuss Welsh affairs there are at least three speeches on the theme of derelict land in the South Wales mining valleys. This is a very urgent problem in Monmouthshire, where there are 4,000 acres of derelict or waste land as a result of the spoliation of the past. In Glamorganshire, there would be a correspondingly high figure.
One can understand why the story is going round in South Wales about an essay competition in a grammar school for which the first prize offered was a week's holiday in Dowlais and the


second prize was a fortnight's holiday there. We can appreciate that type of story in South Wales, because we know what Dowlais is and the price which the people of Dowlais have paid for industrialisation in the past.
Potentially, this is a very valuable Clause. If it is implemented when the Bill becomes an Act, it will bring much joy and evoke much enthusiasm all over the country. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister of State does not readily accept this Amendment. I speak on behalf of the county council and the urban district councils of Monmouthshire. On more than one occasion we have met to discuss this problem, but representations we have made have borne no fruit whatever. If the Amendment were inserted, and we knew that as of right we could make representations to the Board of Trade, that would help generally in the achievement of the purpose of this Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is not a coincidence that every hon. Member who has taken part in this debate comes from an industrial area. There is imprisoned in Egypt at present Mr. Zarb, who is paying the price for Suez, a continuing bill that we are paying for Suez. We are now discussing the price of a continuing bill of eighteenth and nineteenth century capitalism.
I was surprised that the Minister of State said that this was a restrictive Amendment in that it would deprive authorities other than elected local authorities from making representations to the Board of Trade. I can well imagine many church organisations and others wanting to make representations which. the Minister presumes, would be excluded if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill. I make this suggestion to him. Would he be prepared, on the Report stage, to introduce another Amendment, if he does not accept this one, and to put in the brackets the words, "on the representation of any interested body"? That would include local authorities and all the other bodies which he said would be precluded if the Amendment were accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that some time ago the Government introduced legislation the alleged purpose of which was to enhance the freedom and prestige of local authorities.

That was the purpose of the general grant proposals, and so on. Here is an opportunity for the Government to give evidence of their good faith by bringing local authorities more into the picture. Who knows better than the local authorities the problems in their areas? Less than an hour ago I received a deputation from Fife County Council, which neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Scottish Office thought fit to meet. The county council representatives came to make representations on this problem.
They have taken the trouble to make a survey of one part of the Lochgelly district. My hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (The Rev. Ll. Williams) spoke of 4,000 acres of derelict land in Wales, but in this case, in a small portion of Fife, there are 3,500 acres of derelict land. One acre in seven—14 per cent. of the land—is derelict. There are 733 acres of colliery bings, pit heaps as we call them in Durham, in that one part of Fife. There ate 303 acres of flooded area that normally goes with the bings. More than 1,000 acres in one small part of Central Fife with pit bings are flooded. These cause risks to health and very often loss of life, because when it is covered with ice children skate on it.
Who knows about these problems better than the local authorities? I remember having a meeting with the present Minister of Defence, who was then Minister of Labour, about this problem in Fife. I met him in Edinburgh, and he and his advisers said to us, "Looking at the Cowdenbeath and Central West Fife areas, industrialists will immediately say, 'It is not very inviting'." Of course it is not, and the industrialists are to blame. They have torn wealth from the ground, which is now writhing, upturning and subsiding, with houses looking as if they had been out on the spree.

Mr. H. Rhodes: Not only industry, but the Government are responsible, too. ill become derelict in the next few years. Whose responsibility is it to clean those up?

Mr. Hamilton: I have not mentioned this point, but there are 73 acres with derelict buildings in this small area of Fife.
The Minister of State says. "The Board of Trade will take account of


this". But local authorities know more about this problem than any board. They should have rights, and the rights ought to be in the Bill. It is no good the Minister saying, "You can trust us". We do not trust them. That is the whole point. That is why we want the Amendment in the Bill. We want it in black and white in the Bill. Assurances from the Government Front Bench do not count.
I suggest to the hon. Member that he should give an undertaking that he will bring forward an Amendment on Report which will ensure, as a legislative right, that local authorities and other interested bodies shall be entitled to make representations to the Board of Trade.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The pseudo reply which we have had from the Minister of State is but a part of the farce that is involved and implied in the Bill. I have sat for several hours in this Chamber, but I have never heard such insincerity oozing out of speeches from the Government Front Bench as I have over this Bill.
The Minister knows very well that the Distribution of Industry Act goes. The special areas reconstruction associations, which have done such tremendous work in one-time derelict areas like my own, also will go for all practical purposes. Where is the initiative to rest? If the hon. Member disagreed with the Amendment, why did not he give a single reason to justify his disagreement? He said that the Amendment would be restrictive, but he gave no reason to justify his belief. He did not enlighten us in the least about why he should make such a statement, but he knows very well that this is the kind of Amendment which is needed having regard to the fact that the Distribution of Industry Act goes and the special areas reconstruction associations are being killed.
4.45 p.m.
Why should the Minister deprive the authorities mentioned in the Amendment of initiative and responsibility? Are he and the Government afraid that if an Amendment such as this were made local authorities will be given some dynamic power under the Bill? One of my hon. Friends referred to Dowlais, a part of my constituency. What he said was perfectly justified, but he could have gone a

little further and quoted a predecessor of mine in the House many years ago, who described Dowlais as hell with the lid off. That is a measure of the utter desecration which was perpetrated, not only in my own constituency but in the industrial valleys of South Wales and elsewhere in the early days of large-scale industry.
Why does not the Minister do one or two things—either tell the House that the Government have no intention of putting anything that is good, helpful, or dynamic in the Bill, or that the Bill is a farcical approach to the tragedies of unemployment in our country? The hon. Member should be ashamed of himself, if he is capable of such a virtue.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I shall not detain the Committee long, because I am as anxious as the Minister to facilitate the proceedings of the Bill. I wish to speed up its progress, but the hon. Gentleman has not been very helpful. His reply was simply knocked over by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who drew attention to the last two words of the Amendment and practically destroyed the whole of the Minister's argument.
As I understand, it is not the Government's intention to deprive the local authorities mentioned in the Amendment from making representations to the Board of Trade. I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman is not mentally alert today, because he had a rather strenuous night and probably is not seized of all the aspects of the Amendment. That is why I should like to put this to him. The Government argue that they are anxious to display their desire to do something about the matters with which the Bill deals. We have heard that over and over again from the President of the Board of Trade. He says, "I accept the challenge." If the Government accept the challenge, would it not be a very good thing to make clear to the local authorities mentioned in the Amendment that they have a right to make representations to the Board of Trade about areas in their localities? That point is worth considering.
If the Amendment is not put in the Bill, what will be the position of a county clerk in a small area? He will


not know the legal facilities available to him and, therefore, will read the Bill when it is an Act. If the Amendment were inserted in the Bill it will be made clear to such a county clerk that the local authority can go to the Board of Trade and say, "We have an area which we should like to use for industrial development. It is within our development plan, but we require assistance." It would be a guide to local authority officials.
When we pass legislation we should try to assist the people who have to administer it. We would assist them by making it clear what are their powers and what they are expected to do. If for no other reason it would be a good thing to insert these words, especially as my right hon. Friend effectively demolished the arguments advanced by the Minister of State.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to support the Amendment. There are unsightly areas not only in Scotland and Wales but also in Cornwall, and, indeed, in the Urban District of Camborne Redruth where I live. It has particular force here, because the unemployment figures just announced show that in Camborne Redruth unemployment is now above 6 per cent. Since the war, the local authority has cleared areas of derelict mining land. The firm with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was associated built a factory on a cleared site some years ago. Another factory is now going up.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, it is advisable that the words should appear in the Statute. Derelict land causes loss of life. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government about responsibility for derelict or open mine shafts, of which there are hundreds in West Cornwall and in one of which a lad aged 16 was drowned only a fortnight ago. I beg the Minister of State to reconsider the Amendment and to agree that it should be written into the Statute.

Mr. Erroll: Perhaps the Committee would wish me to clear up two small points. There is very little between us. We all want to ensure that local authorities and other bodies have the opportunity to make representations freely to the Board of Trade. The Government

want them to do so, and we shall be glad to receive such representations. I fully take the point put to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but the reason against including the words is this. If we put them into the Bill, an inquiring town clerk or local official, having found that in this case he could make representations, might when he came to look at another Clause in which it was not specifically stated that he could make representations, think that he was prevented from doing so because it was not specified. Therefore, it is much better not to include the words. Local authorities and other bodies are at liberty to make representations on this Clause or any other appropriate Clause.
The point made about the words "or otherwise" does not knock my argument sideways, but rather reinforces it. I am informed that "or otherwise" legally would mean "otherwise than by making representations," not "other types of bodies." The words "or otherwise" would not meet the point of including other bodies not specified in the Amendment.
For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will not press for the inclusion of the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: Is it contended that there is a fear that the words would give legal cover to a riot designed to bring things to the notice of the Board of Trade?

Mrs. Hart: I wish to put two questions to the Minister of State about development corporations, which were very inadequately covered in his reply. First, does he realise that with the creation of new towns there are 14 or 15 quasi-local authorities all of which will have a severe unemployment problem? It is time that the Government legislated specifically for them instead of hoping that they will be covered by circuitous methods not related to the problem.
Secondly, can the Minister of State tell me of any provisions of the New Towns Act, 1946, which could specifically empower the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England to give grants for acquiring land, which is a function of development corporations and planning authorities, or for clearing and improving sites, not for the purpose


of improving the amenities of a neighbourhood for the local inhabitants, but for attracting new industry, which is a function of the Board of Trade?

Amendment negatived.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arbuthnot): The next Amendment to be selected is in page 4, line 18, at the end to insert:
or to any company the constitution of which prohibits the distribution of the profits of the company to its members",
with which may be discussed the Amendments in page 4, line 20, at the end to insert:
or of the acquisition of the land by the company",
and in page 4, line 21, after "council" to insert "or the company".

Mr. Jay: We are willing not to move this group of Amendments in the hope that it may enable other Amendments to be discussed today and that this subject may be covered on Report.

Mr. Erroll: I am very grateful for the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, at the end to insert:
(4) In this section "amenities" includes facilities for recreation.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 26, at the end to insert:
including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the provision of amenities and facilities for recreation.
It is provided in Clause 5 that derelict sites may be cleared for industrial and other purposes, including amenities. My hon. Friends wish to be assured that "amenities" includes facilities for recreation, because many derelict sites in industrial areas where industry was built right into the centre of the community are not sites which it would normally be desirable to clear for industrial purposes, but sites in many cases, which when cleared would better be used for recreation.
We feel that if the definition of "amenities" can be so extended, the communities concerned will become more attractive to industries and more

attractive to those who might come to work in those industries, including the key workers who might need to be brought in from more attractive parts of the country. I therefore hope that the Amendment will appeal to the Minister of State and to the President of the Board of Trade.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I regret that I was not in my place when the Amendment was called, Mr. Arbuthnot, but I was seeking to do my duty by voting on the last Amendment. However, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) for moving the Amendment in my place in such very careful words. This Amendment, and the one that we are taking with it, seeks clarification of what is meant by "facilities for recreation" in relation to amenities.
I think I see the President of the Board of Trade nodding his head, so there is probably little need for me to prolong this discussion. We have been talking a great deal on Amendments intended to bring employment to these areas, but the intention of this one is to provide something that will keep people in the districts once the industries have come. If I can get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, we will be able to pass on.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I can assure the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. T. Watkins) and Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the provision of recreational facilities is already within the scope of the Clause. Frankly, I am not quite certain about the effect of including these proposed words, but perhaps I may be allowed to look at them between now and the Report stage in case there are any snags. However, I entirely accept the purpose of the Amendment—it is also the purpose of the Bill—and if we can include these words conveniently so as to make that clearer, we will do so.

Mr. Fraser: In view of that assurance, Mr. Arbuthnot, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: As would be apparent from our discussion on the first Amendment taken today, this is a very important Clause. The information that has come from Fife, from Wales and from other parts of the country indicates that this problem extends much beyond what many people might imagine in reading the Clause and in listening to the Ministers. Acres and acres of industrial slum heritage are out of use to the nation, and this Clause endeavours to bring some of them back into use.
The Clause itself is printed rather differently from the rest. We get the italicised warning that it has something to do with what the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has so felicitously described as "State lolly"—[An HON. MEMBER: "He gets his share."] I do not know about that, but the noble Lord has shown himself to be very jealous and concerned about what is to happen to "State lolly" here. So am I.
From what has been said by my colleagues, Britain undoubtedly needs an industrial cleaning-up, and I want to know to what extent this Clause can be used for that purpose. I would like the Minister to tell us how much it is proposed to spend annually on this task of getting rid of these eyesores, these areas—because it is not a matter of localities—of neglect. To what extent is he to be free properly to tackle this job, whether on the representations of the local authorities or anyone else?
I spent a lot of time studying this Clause last night. I sat here until a late hour waiting for it to be called, but we did not reach it. To what extent will the Minister be free to do as much as, obviously, the Committee would like him to do under the Bill? I hope he will correct me if I am wrong, but to me there seems to be two ways of tackling the problem. According to subsections (1) and (2) it can be done by the Board, and according to subsections (3) and (4) it can be done by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Housing and Local Government—acting, I presume, as agents through the medium of the local authorities.
It is noticeable that we have this constant phrase "with the consent of the Treasury" in relation to anything that is to be done for local authorities under

this Clause by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in relation to what is done directly under subsection (1) by the Board, as so designated, there is no question of the consent of the Treasury being needed.
Is that all disguised by the use of the words "if so authorised"? And what on earth are those words doing there at all? Who authorises the Board of Trade? Who authorises the President of the Board of Trade? If it is Parliament, the authorisation will be this Bill when it is enacted, and there would be no need for the words. The existence of the Statute, or of some other Statute, would be authorisation enough. I find it very difficult to justify the inclusion of these words, though I take it that there is some reason for them—

Mr. Erroll: The authorisation relates to the adverb "compulsorily". The Board of Trade would be authorised by the appropriate legislation, which is, I think, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act.

Mr. Ross: The Board of Trade would find it very difficult to do this if it were not authorised, so what is the use of these words? The Board of Trade must be authorised by legislation. We have been told that the Government do not wish to adorn this Bill, and particularly this Clause, with unnecessary words, but here are unnecessary words—

Mr. Willis: Does not my hon. Friend think that the words "if so authorised" might be rather restrictive on activities?

Mr. Ross: This is what arises when we get unnecessary words. It leads to confusion, and to people asking why the words are there. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is not a man of suspicious nature in relation to these matters—

Mr. John Paton: It provides fees for lawyers who have to construe them.

Mr. Ross: Where does the Treasury come in. in relation to the Board of Trade acting directly? If the explanation is right, if "authorised" relates purely to an authorisation under previous legislation, is the right hon. Gentleman going to be free to do as he likes


in making grants in respect of "derelict, neglected or unsightly" areas? That is a very important point and we ought to have an idea of the extent to which the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to act in advance of anything that arises immediately in any area. In relation to the whole country where the clearance of areas will be of industrial and development benefit, this should be tackled right away as a specific part of the operation, instead of waiting until the question arises of a factory going into a particular area.
Has any limit been placed by the Treasury on how much money will be forthcoming? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that there is no limit stated in the Money Resolution, which must be of interest to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South. Are we to take it that the annual provision will be decided by the President of the Board of Trade and that he is being given a free hand by the Treasury? Will the Treasury say "Here is a job which must be done. This is the legislation. Now go ahead and do it"?
I want to discuss the Clause in relation to other aspects—probably less important aspects from some points of view, but they are equally important to one who likes to read and understand legislation. The first point arises from these words:
The following provisions of this section shall have effect as respects land …
Does "land" in this context include buildings? In this part of the Bill there is no definition of "land." There are differing interpretations of the word in various Statutes. I hope that in this case it includes buildings. In another Clause the Bill goes out of its way to say that "land" includes buildings, and I was wondering why it had not been defined specifically here. It is important to know whether buildings are included, as my hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) have said that powers will be required to deal not only with land but with buildings on land as well.
I should like to know how the President of the Board of Trade intends to come to a decision in relation to the delightful phrase "derelict, neglected or unsightly"—rather an apt description, I

think, of the Government Front Bench last night. I want to know whether all these qualifications have to be fulfilled or whether only one of them need be fulfilled. Must the land and the buildings be derelict and neglected and unsightly, or does the absence of one of these qualifications rule it out from help?

Mr. Erroll: "Or"; it says so.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should not be ready to pick me up before I fall. I am only asking a simple question. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Scottish Grand Committee as often as I have, for my sins, he would have discovered that very often the legal opinion is that the word "or" means "and". He will appreciate that this applies equally to Scotland as it does to England and Wales, and will be construed by Scottish as well as by English lawyers.
5.15 p.m.
We now have the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade that any one of these considerations alone will make the land eligible for help under this Clause. By the way, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could give me a definition of "derelict"?

Mr. Erroll: Mr. Errollrose—

Mr. Ross: No, not just now. I do not want to lose my train of thought. The problem is that the land is some times ownerless. Until one can trace the owner it is very difficult to purchase the land by agreement, and therefore we get the prolonged aspect of compulsory purchase.
As to the phrase "neglected or unsightly", I raise this point because I asked whether this reference to land included buildings. Who is to decide whether or not a building is unsightly? This is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. How does one decide whether a building is unsightly? As I read the Bill, an unsightly building could be in use. I asked whether all these considerations had to apply and the hon. Gentleman said that was not necessary and that only one or the other need apply. In that case, does that mean that an unsightly building can be treated under this Bill because of its unsightliness? The land has got to be brought into use
for improving the amenities of the neighbourhood.


Here we have the position that unsightly buildings, even if they are in use, can be taken over either by agreement or compulsorily if the taking over of the land and buildings and the removal of the unsightly structure leads to the redevelopment of the area for the purposes of employment.
Quite apart from derelict areas, there are in certain places unsightly buildings whose presence inhibits the bringing of new industry to those places. I want to know whether, when this delightful piece of poetic legal jargon was inserted, "derelict, neglected or unsightly", it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this problem. If so, he will probably appreciate that the land may cost him a lot more. In fact, I am coming on to the question of cost, because it is very important.
I want to know what will be the cost in relation to an Act which we passed not very long ago. I am glad to see the Minister of Housing and Local Government in his place. He will remember that not long ago he inflicted upon the country a new Town and Country Planning Act dealing with this very matter of compulsory purchase.
Here it is already stated that the purpose of compulsory purchase is related to industrial development. What effect does that have on the value of the land? What effect does the Act for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible have on the actual cost to the Board of Trade or to the local authority in respect of this land? We all remember the question raised by one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends about the tremendous amount of money paid by, I think, a local authority in order to buy back a piece of ground which the right hon. Gentleman himself purchased not so very long ago. The difference was, however, that the right hon. Gentleman purchased it under one Town and Country Planning Act and sold it back under the latest Act.
What is going to be the increased cost to the country, in "State lolly" as the noble Lord described it, as a result of the application of that Act to the purchase of derelict land required for industrial development? I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that the land superior comes into this. It may well be that in

this case he has a personal interest in "State lolly", because the land superior has got to get his cut out of this compensation and any continuing compensation for compulsory acquisition.
There are one or two other points I wish to raise. I would like the Minister, who has been concerned about the purity of the language of the Clause as demonstrated by his attitude to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), to tell me just exactly what this is all about. Clause 5 (3) states:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants, in such manner …
What does that mean? It conjures up a delightful picture of the Minister dealing out money in various way and in various moods of generosity in relation to the occasion. I do not suppose that that is what is meant. The subsection goes on to state:
in such manner as appears to him to be requisite …
Therefore, in relation to each grant the right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind how he is to behave when he hands over the money.
I am all for simplicity of language when it comes to legislation. I am also for uniformity of language and for that language being grammatical. Clause 7 (1) states that when other grants are being handed out the right hon. Gentleman
may with the consent of the Treasury make grants or loans … in such manner as appear to him appropriate …
Why the change of phrase in these two cases which seem to be dealing with exactly the same thing, and why, indeed, the change of verbal ending? In one case we have the words
make grants, in such manner as appears
and in the other case the words
make grants … in such manner as appear
Why in one case should the words be
appears to him to be requisite
and in the other
appear to him appropriate"?
What is the difference? This is the kind of thing that leads to the suspicion that there is more in this than meets the layman's eye. There is something to be


explained, because I remember the discussion on this last night—not so very long ago.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This morning.

Mr. Ross: Yes, this morning.
We see that when the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury and on the advice of the advisory committee, is going to make a partial grant to some industry it makes the grant "towards the cost." The word "cost" appears in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 5 (3). What is the grant going to be? Is it going to be 100 per cent., 95 per cent., 90 per cent., 75 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the cost?
I think that these words are chosen deliberately to ensure that the matter is left entirely to the President of the Board of Trade. They give no indication to the Committee that the proportion of grant is going to be such as to meet the need. I think we are entitled to ask the Government what they have in mind and whether they are going to make a 100 per cent. grant. I presume that the Board of Trade will pay 100 per cent. of the cost. If it is going to be done by the local authority acting as the agent of the Board of Trade then that local authority ought to get 100 per cent. of the cost. It should not have to incur any financial responsibility for doing the work for the Board of Trade. As drafted the subsection reads:
The Minister of Housing and Local Government may, with the consent of the Treasury make grants, in such manner as appears to him to be requisite for the purposes of this section … towards the cost …"—
not to meet the cost, but towards it. That is what it means. I want to know what is in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade and whether I am right or wrong about this.
One other point. It is not a very important point, but I would remind the Minister of State of a suggestion that he made when he spoke—it was not the worst of the speeches made at that time —in the Scottish industrial debate in July. The hon. Gentleman put forward the suggestion that what we required in Scotland were not just factories but also new office accommodation. We wanted, I presume, to attract departments of big business and Departments of State. I want to know whether the Minister is

prepared to use this Clause in order to clear the sites which would permit the local authority, or someone acting as the agent for the Board of Trade, to effect not industrial development in the sense of factory development but in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman spoke as being desirable from the point of view of Scotland of putting up factories. Will that be covered by this Clause?

Mr. Erroll: Yes.

Mr. Ross: I am, indeed, glad that we have received one satisfactory answer from the Minister of State. I sincerely hope that he will be able to answer the points I have put to him. I am sure he does not want me to go over them again. I could do so, and very quickly indeed. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will use the powers that are in the Clause.
The Clause is tremendously important from the point of view of the old, historic industrial areas of Scotland. We are in need of cleaning up and have been in need of that for centuries in relation to our slum heritages. Here is the chance to do it. I hope the Minister will say in his reply that he is determined that this shall be done and that he will not be put off by the noble Lord's reference to this squandering of "State lolly" but will realise that he has here the ability to bring much needed help by way of employment to areas at present suffering from high unemployment.

Viscount Rinchingbrooke: Surveying hon. Members of the Committee at the moment and imagining what I myself look like, I suppose that most of us present here today qualify for Government assistance under the definition of this Clause—" derelict, neglected or unsightly." If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is allowed to carry on with another series of speeches like the ones he delivered in the small hours of this morning and the one he delivered a few moments ago, we shall have to claim twice or three times the amount of Government assistance to which we would seem to be entitled under the Clause. If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade can think of any way of giving immediate Government assistance so as to prevent the hon. Gentleman producing


this unsavoury situation during the next two or three days, I am sure that we shall all be very grateful.
5,30 p.m.
My opposition to the Bill, as I think the Committee knows, is confined to the giving of Government assistance to private enterprise for the sake of carrying out a particular current theme of the moment, namely, moving enterprises from one situation to another in order, it would seem, to fill up a temporary pocket of local unemployment. I am opposed to that principle, but I am by no means opposed, as I sought to make clear on Second Reading, to Government assistance—if necessary, quite lavish—through other channels for the same social purpose of maintaining full employment. This Clause is an admirable vehicle for this purpose. I should he very grateful if my right hon. Friend, in responding to this debate, will indicate in a general way how far it is the intention of the Government to use this Clause to operate a substantially new policy.
As hon. Members have pointed out, and as I am sure we all know, the House as a whole sees the grave danger of turning this country into an over-urbanised and industrialised community, derelict or not. If there are industrial sites in various parts of the country, as we know there are, which could be cleared up, employment being provided thereby, surely this would be an admirable way of improving the appearance of the country side and elevating the whole way of life of the community. I sometimes wonder whether the spirit of this country will ever rise again as high as it is at present or it has been in the past if we do not take control of some of the grossly over-urbanised industrialised locations and carry out some process of decentralisation in town and country planning more purposefully and more relentlessly than we have hitherto.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It would cost a bit. would it not?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would be quite prepared to see a considerable amount of resources used for this purpose. In this Clause, we have the right vehicle for the purpose, the local authority, which is traditionally the Government's vehicle for the spending of

money for social purposes. I have no quarrel with this Clause or with the next or the one after that. If the Government will shed all the other aspects of the Bill and enshrine these three Clauses in an Act—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I hope the noble Lord will restrict his remarks to the Clause we are now discussing, Clause 5, and not discuss the other two.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Thank you, Sir William. If the Government will enshrine this Clause in an Act—when we come to Clause 6 and Clause 7, perhaps I may make the same speech again—the net result will be very satisfactory.
There is one matter which grieves me. I see that there appears in this Clause what appeared in a previous Clause to which, 1 think, we may be able to revert on Report because it was passed yesterday by agreement, namely, the subject of compulsory purchase. The country now dislikes compulsory purchase very much indeed. I should have thought that, for the purpose of clearing industrial sites which are derelict, neglected or unsightly, it would hardly be necessary to invoke this power at all. There may be the odd industrialist who is allowing a site to remain unused and, to some appearances, the site may appear unsightly or neglected; but he may have an ultimate purpose for it. He may be calculating that, in three or four years, work which he is now doing in another part of the country could be transferred to this site, workpeople brought in, and new processes for which he is, shall we say, preparing a patent or something like that, set going there. I should not like to think that the State would walk in on this situation and take the land and his factory by compulsory purchase. We should have some assurance before we pass the Clause that that kind of thing will be considered.
On the other hand, the great majority of owners of land and property included in this category will be extremely glad if the State or the local authority is prepared to come along and purchase it, restore it and make it satisfactory again. There is no other bidder for it.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am very interested in what the noble Lord is saying. I agree entirely with the Clause,


and I accept, of course, that there is a great deal of work to be done. The noble Lord has spoken with some emphasis already about "State lolly," but what he is now speaking about will require public money being spent to clear up the muck left by private industrialists.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It would certainly mean the use of public money to purchase an industrialist's site. The only point I seek to make at the moment is that the price is bound to be rock bottom. Nobody has made a bid at all. Presumably, such an industrialist has, for years, except in the one case I instanced just now, been trying to sell the land and has been unable to sell it because there has been no bidder. The price must, therefore, be rock bottom at the finish. I should have thought that, without these words, the State could acquire the land relatively cheaply. I am, nonetheless, glad to hear the point debated.
If the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) wishes to drag me back on to my old ground again and make me rear my King Charles's head about "State lolly" once more, I am with him there. I do not want the State to be called upon to pay vast sums for land which is no use to anybody. That is the kind of problem with which we are faced. I feel that my right hon. Friend ought, even if the Bill is somewhat delayed, and particularly since it is supposed to be the major Bill of this Session, to be in a position now to expatiate at some length on whether the Government intend to use this Clause and the next two to initiate a large new social purpose. I am quite sure that the country wants that, particularly if it is to be associated with reducing local unemployment.

Miss Margaret Herbison: For once, I agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), although, of course, on other matters I disagree with him very strongly. During the course of my short speech, I hope to take up certain of the comments which he made.
Clause 5 seems to be a very important part of the Bill. The Government are to take powers in order to acquire sites for industrial purposes and, also, to make

the amenities of certain areas much better than they are now. But, of course, I expect that money will be spent on improving amenities only if the improving of the amenities helps to bring industry to an area.
By subsections (1) and (2), the Board of Trade is taking powers to purchase land and to carry out works to improve amenities.
In subsection (3), powers are given to the local authorities to do the same kind of work. It is important to know at this stage how much money the Government expect to spend on this great project in Britain. I hope that the Minister will tell me in what circumstances he envisages that the Board of Trade will carry out this work and in what circumstances he envisages that the local authority will carry it out. It is important that we should know that, because this is linked closely with the financial provisions which may be made under the Clause.
If we look at the provisions by which the Board of Trade may carry out this work, we presume that 100 per cent. of the cost will be met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What percentage will be given to the local authority through the Secretary of State for Scotland? It is important that local authorities should know the answer to that question. I understand that my local authority has been informed that it will be given a 75 per cent. grant for the clearance and preparation of a site in Lanarkshire for industrial purposes. If local authorities take the initiative and have the energy to do the work, why should they have to find 25 per cent. of the cost?
Under what circumstances will there be this division of labour in this important work? I understand that the Lanarkshire local authority some time ago decided that it would prepare a site in each of its nine district councils. The President of the Board of Trade knows that Lanarkshire, particularly the huge area of North Lanarkshire, has the very heavy rate of unemployment of 6.5 per cent. He also knows from his visit that it has many derelict and unsightly places to be cleared. Will it be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to have drawn to his notice by the Lanarkshire local authority these nine sites which it would like to clear? Alternatively, how is he to find out in each area what site he


wishes to clear with a 100 per cent. grant from the Treasury?
If, after this Measure is on the Statute Book, the Lanarkshire authority makes such a proposal, what rate of grant will the authority be given? We should like an answer to that question before we part wan the Clause. I make a special plea that the rate of grant should be 100 per cent., because I cannot for the life of me see why 100 per cent. of the cost should be borne by the Treasury if the Board of Trade decides to do the work, but only a proportion of the cost should be borne by the Treasury for the very same type of work if the local authority decides to carry it out.
l want to ask a question about the word "ultimately". I know that the noble Lord has very tender feelings about land, landlords and landowners. I have just as tender feelings about all the thousands of men and women who are unemployed in my constituency. I have experience in my constituency of the reluctance of the Board of Trade to institute compulsory purchase in an area with 6.5 per cent. unemployed. A firm had the agreement of the Board of Trade to build an extension. This is a firm which is looking to the future and which has planned three extensions. A year ago last month, it made an application for the extension to which I refer, and only this week, I understand, has agreement been reached on the purchase of the land. It seems to me that if we had taken into account the desperate need for employment in that area, in every circumstance such compulsory powers would be used in order to provide work for these people. Perhaps the noble Lord's values and my values are very different, but I feel great concern for those men and women who art denied what I consider is the first right of any man or woman—the right to work.
5.45 p.m.
Another important point which I want to raise is that in Clause 1 we are giving very important powers to the Board of Trade. In Clause 1 (3) we read:
In determining whether and in what manner to exercise their powers under this Part of this Act for the benefit of any such locality as aforesaid the Board shall have regard—
(a) to the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided;

Do the powers in Clause 5 (1) also depend on the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided? That is very important, particularly when we consider all the amenities and recreational facilities necessary. How soon after the passage of the Bill do the Government intend to implement the provisions of the Clause?
The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland are aware of the unsightly, ugly pit heaps around one factory in the area about which I am speaking. Knowing these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately and on his own initiative set about clearing these unsightly areas, or will this be left to the local authority's initiative, with a grant which will not be 100 per cent.? These are important matters which I am sure that the Minister of State would like to have clear before we pass the Clause.
The noble Lord said that he was against any provisions in the Bill which would deal with what he called a temporary pocket of unemployment. I expect that he meant a pocket of temporary local unemployment. From all the conditions hedging almost every Clause of the Bill, it seems that it will not deal with temporary unemployment.
I have raised these points because I consider them important, because I am glad that this provision is in the Bill and because not only hon. Members but also local authorities are most anxious to have the answers.

Mr. Graham Page: I join with both the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in calling this a tremendously important Clause and with my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in describing it as admirable. I do not, however, want to develop that theme at such length as did the hon. Member for Kilmarnock because my purpose is a narrow one of elucidation concerning the phrase at the end of subsection (1) which reads:
… for the purpose of enabling any of the land to be brought into use or of improving the amenities of the neighbourhood.
Is it intended to use those powers merely for the purpose of providing commercial and industrial premises which will house an undertaking that will itself provide employment, or will they be used


more extensively to provide employment merely in the execution of the work—in the carrying out of the building—on the land so taken over?
Following what my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South was saying, I hope that the Clause will be used much more widely than merely to provide industrial premises that will house an undertaking to employ people and that it might be used even if it only produces some building which itself will not create employment.
In particular, I think of housing, housing for those who may be needed in the area for the employment which is created there. The use of the Clause for that purpose would not be for the creation of a building which itself was housing people at work, but for the creation of houses in which would live those people who would be employed in the industrial undertakings being developed in the area.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say whether the Clause can be used for housing purposes in that way, housing either connected with an industrial undertaking in the district or quite separate from it, because the building of the houses would provide temporary employment during the time that that was done. I am sure that if the Clause is used in that way it will be of great help, certainly to some of the smaller local authorities which are having the utmost difficulty in getting started on the development of their areas purely and simply because of difficulty on the professional side, by which 1 mean the surveying, legal or architectural aspects.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock touched upon this subject when he asked for a definition of "derelict". He understood it to mean something that was ownerless. Many of the sites which local authorities wish to clear and develop appear to be owner-less. The employment of professional men to carry out the taking over of the sites deters the smaller type of local authority from even starting the job. It may be that under subsection (1) of the Clause the Board of Trade, or under subsection (3) the Minister of Housing an] Local Government, could help in that initial stage of starting a development or a clearance.
Concerning the use of these powers for housing, I notice that in the Third Schedule the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950, will be entirely repealed. I am wondering whether a Section in that Act is covered by this Clause. The Committee may remember that in Section 3 (2) of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950, power was given to the Board of Trade to make grants or loans to housing associations. That power seems to have been lost in the Bill and I am wondering whether it is thought that it is covered by the powers included in the Clause. If not, I am sorry. I would regret it if the Clause did not cover that sort of power. It was given to meet cases in which the Board of Trade was satisfied that any such grant or loan to a housing association would further the provision in a Development Area of dwellings for persons employed or to be employed there. If that power has gone I would like my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider carefully whether it ought not to be introduced into the Clause.

Mr. Jay: Would not that be under Clause 7? It is for the Minister to say.

Mr. Page: If that is so I am obliged. If I could have an assurance about this I should be happy.
The question of compulsory purchase has been raised and the question of compensation arises from it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State ought to make it clear how compulsory purchase and compensation under the Clause tie up with the rights concerning compulsory purchase and clearance of unfit houses, because the compensation for taking over unfit dwelling houses is very different from that which, apparently, will be paid under the Clause. We ought to know how those two aspects tie up. It is an important matter and I hope that we shall have an explanation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I regret that I was not present when the Minister of State replied to the previous Amendment. I had been called out and for a short time I had to look after some visitors. This prevented me from being present. It enabled me, however, to see a number of my hon. Friends leaving the Chamber with a feeling of indignation because they were not satisfied with the Minister's answer. They felt that we should have


proceeded to a Division to express our difference with the Minister of State because his reply was not satisfactory. I make that eplanation because this is our place, especially when we take an interest in the Committee, if we are to get the best results from pooling our ideas and experiences in the way that we should to make the Bill a better one before we part with it.
I welcome this discussion because the area with which I am familiar has suffered probably as much as, if not more than, any other part of the country from the kind of thing that we are discussing. In my view, there is a great responsibility upon the Minister of State in replying to this debate. I was impressed by the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The noble Lord is present together with a number of other hon. Members. Therefore, on this issue democracy should prevail. Even if the Minister of State has not yet made up his mind to deal with the Clause in as broad and generous a way as possible, surely he has been impressed by the contributions which have been made? When we consider the fundamental differences between the noble Lord and myself on the Bill as a whole, surely we have reached so much common agreement in the Committee that the Minister of State will take action that reflects the ideas contained in most of the speeches which have been made?
I will explain why I said that a great responsibility rests upon the Minister of State. For some time it was my privilege to work with the people who were administering these matters at the Board of Trade. I have never worked with more loyal and conscientious men and women. For months they would have worked night and day in co-operation with me.
6.0 p.m.
I hope I am forgiven for saying this. It is not often that I speak about anything with which I am connected as an individual. The world suffers so much from egotism—these personal references expressed in the first person singular, "I" all the time. Therefore, I have always been on guard against it, but I believe in giving credit where it is due,

and it is a real treat to see the way in which that Department administers Clauses like this.
Where we go wrong is this. If a Minister is really determined, if he really means business, if he means to administer a Measure 100 per cent. in accordance with the desires of this Committee, the officials of the Board of Trade can be relied upon to carry it out. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister of State to reply to the debate in harmony with the atmosphere prevailing in this Committee. If he does that I have complete confidence that those behind the scenes will carry out the Bill 100 per cent. I have had sufficient experience to enable me to say without any hesitation that if a Minister knows his own mind, if he can say "Yes" and if he can say "No", then, in the main, the civil servants do what he says and carry out the provisions of the Measure. The difficulties arise when we have so much vacillation and when so many do not know their own business. If a Minister shows that he is determined to carry out a Measure when it becomes an Act of Parliament we can rely on it being carried out.
I come now to some concrete examples on the need for the Bill. The Minister of State knows the old Irwell Valley; he knows the River Irwell. Instead of it being talked about and sung about like the blue Danube, it is looked upon now as the blackest river in the world, and all my life in the whole of the valley through which it runs there have been derelict land and mountains of waste. Children play there, but the environment is really disgraceful. I ask that this Clause should be administered 100 per cent. so that after 100 years during which there has been derelict land, which is really disgraceful, a change may be brought about. [Interruption.] This is no joke. No one living there would joke about it. Right along this valley, from the very top, mountains of wealth have been poured out for years. All my life men have worked almost night and day pouring out mountains of wealth which has gone to other parts of the country and other parts of the world while land in the valley has been left derelict.
I come to my own division. I have pleaded for my own division with every


Government Department. The municipality has a magnanimous and generous outlook upon these things, and it, too, has pleaded, yet not one atom of good has been done. I have seen Bill after Bill introduced that might have helped. They raised hopes in me which were all dashed to the ground because, in the end, nothing was done.
On this occasion I hope that the Minister of State will at least say that the Government mean business and mean to transfer these theoretical ideas expressed in the Bill into concrete reality by dealing with these derelict sites which are such a waste and which have been a disgrace to Britain for 150 years.
I come to my final point. We have the Civic Trust. Many opposed fundamentally to me politically are engaged in the Civic Trust, but within the narrow limits of their aims and objects those men all know what they want to do. There are Members on both sides of the Committee associated with the Civic Trust. There are some who have been generous in their contributions. They are doing noble work. Let us encourage them. Let the Minister of State say, "We accept the aims and objects of the Civic Trust. We mean to apply this 100 per cent. in order, first of all, to deal with the derelict land and to use it for any industrial development which is required and, at the same time, to improve the environment, the surroundings where people have been working so hard for so long."
So I make my modest contribution within these very narrow limits, having been impressed by the noble Lord and all others who have made their contributions. I hope the Minister of State is going to reply in complete harmony with the atmosphere now prevailing in this Committee.

Mr. Robert Carr: There is one point which I want to raise very briefly and which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to answer when he replies to the debate. This Clause, as also does Clause 2, gives my right hon. Friend power to acquire land compulsorily. There may be rare occasions when after compulsory acquisition it is found that all or at least part of the land acquired is no longer required and has to be disposed of. The question I want to put to my hon. Friend is

whether when such land is disposed of it will be offered back to the original owner and at the price at which it was purchased.

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry that by intervening now I delay a further contribution on this subject by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) but I thought it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to intervene now and give some answers to points raised in the discussion which we have had.
Of course, it is quite clear that the whole Committee is at one in deploring the unsightly pockmarks of derelict land which there are throughout the country at different places. A number of them I know myself, particularly the one referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his earlier speech, as well as the River Irwell referred to in his speech just now, and I have seen some of the unsightly parts of the rest of Britain. However, what we have to remember is that this is a Bill to create employment. That is its primary purpose. The clearing of derelict areas is only a subordinate purpose, and must be subordinate to the main purpose of providing additional employment in an area of high unemployment.
What we have done is to take the corresponding Section from the 1945 Act, which is also Section 5, and reproduce it substantially unchanged in the present Bill, with three important improvements. The powers are now to be exercisable in relation to neglected and unsightly land as well as to derelict land. Secondly, whereas grants could be made under the 1945 Act only in respect of site clearance, grants are now to be made in regard to the acquisition of the land as well. Thirdly, the grant-making power is transferred from the Board of Trade to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and in Scotland to the Secretary of State.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Why?

Mr. Erroll: Because it makes for more convenient operating procedure.
It must be remembered, in considering whether any derelict site can be rescued, so to speak, by this Bill, that one must consider as a paramount and overriding


question whether site clearance will materially contribute to the relief of unemployment in the locality.

Mr. John McCann: In view of the change in the administration of the grant. may we have an assurance that it will not be included in the block grant at any future date?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think it would be included in the grant, otherwise it would not he necessary to put it down in this Bill, but I should like to look at that point and correct it if necessary. I shall be very glad to look at it.
Another consideration in the question of the clearing of derelict sites is that the cost has to be reasonable in relation to the amount of employment created—

Mr. Ross: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "created"?

Mr. Erroll: —and I refer the Committee to Clause 1 (3), where it will be seen that we can acquire and the Minister of Housing and Local Government can make grants only where these conditions are satisfied.
It is only right that I should draw the Committee's attention to this point because it will circumscribe the amount of clearance which can be done under the Clause; and it would not be fair for the proceedings of the Committee to go out to the country and for the impression to be created that derelict sites wherever situated would qualify for treatment under the Clause.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not think that Clause 1 (3) is caught up in the present Clause. It will have to be put in.

Mr. Erroll: Yes, I think it is, in relation to employment in Clause 1 (3).

Mr. Ross: What is meant by "employment created"? Does it mean employment created by the actual doing of the clearing or the employment that will come from the industrial development which follows as a result of clearing the site?

Mr. Erroll: It means essentially the second, but one would take into account the work created during site clearance. It means employment created by an industrial establishment or the like set

up as a result of clearing the site. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) asked about compulsory purchase and what the procedure would be if it was found necessary to dispose of the land so acquired. I am glad to give the assurance that we would adopt the procedure which he outlined, that is what has come to be called the postCrichel Down procedure, namely, offering the land back to the original owner at the right and appropriate price.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The actual words used by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) were "at the price at which it was purchased." If the Board of Trade spent a great deal of money clearing land, would not the land be sold back not at the purchase price but at its proper value?

Mr. Erroll: I think that when the hon. Member comes to look at what I have said he will find that I have covered that point adequately.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked how much will he spent. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, it is clearly stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that it is not possible to form an estimate of any increase in expenditure that is likely to occur as a result of the Bill. Therefore, it is not possible for me to give any estimate.

Mr. Ross: But that is not good enough.

Mr. Erroll: I am giving the answer. I am sorry if it is not good enough but I find that when I try to be helpful the hon. Member says it is no use and he goes on and on, and when he thinks I am not helpful he gets up again. He has had a fair run, so I shall continue.
Hon. Members have asked about the percentage grants which would be made to the local authorities and whether they would be 100 per cent., 75 per cent. or some lower percentage. The amount of the grants would vary according to circumstances, and they would be a matter for discussion between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the local authority concerned. They certainly will not be 100 per cent. grants.


My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred to the policy behind the Clause. I hope that my explanation will have proved satisfactory to him. I should like to tie up one other loose end and refer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The information is that of the 38 schemes mentioned, which are all necessarily in Development Areas, 18 are in England, 7 in Wales and 13 in Scotland. These are covered by about 30 different local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman will see from that reply that quite substantial use is made of this provision, and now that the extended powers in the new Clause are going through I do not see why we should not be able to make satisfactory use of these provisions in the future. I hope therefore that the Committee will now approve the Clause.

Mr. Jay: As a supplementary to my earlier question, may I ask whether among these approved schemes there is one affecting the Llandore area near Swansea? The dereliction there is not only the most hideous and extensive in the British Isles but this is eminently a case where the spectacle of it, which is bound to be seen by industrialists travelling by road and rail, must have an exceedingly discouraging effect. If there is no scheme in train, will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter?

Mr. Erroll: I will look into it and report to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member who represents the constituency concerned.

Mr. J. Griffiths: All who live west of that area know perfectly well that the area and others adjoining it inhibit industrialists coming there because they are so unsightly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to the matter and pay a visit there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And then come and have a look at Stoke and Wigan.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: I should like to elicit information from the Minister on two important points. He has referred to the grants which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon.

Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). While 1 recognise that the right hon. Gentleman may have difficult in naming the exact percentage of the grant, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that Clause 5 (3) states that the Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, may make grants
in such manner as appears to him to be requisite for the purpose of this section …
Then subsection (3, b) states:
towards the cost of the carrying out by the council of work on the land for enabling any of it to be brought into use, or for improving amenities, as aforesaid.
I can see the Secretary of State for Scotland getting into difficulties here, because when local authorities act as agents for him in the road programme they will find one Department of the Government meeting the cost 100 per cent., whereas when they act on behalf of the Board of Trade there is no saying what grant will be received.
It may be that there are very good reasons why the Minister cannot say what the percentage of grant will be, but could he not indicate what the minimum percentage would be, so that local authorities could prepare their balance sheets accordingly? They should have some idea of the amount of rate-borne expenditure for projects of this nature, for budgetary administrative purposes, when they are dealing with this function on behalf of the Board of Trade. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, although I recognise his possible difficulties in arriving at a fixed percentage.
I am also concerned about the carrying out by the council
of work on the land for enabling any of it to be brought into use …
Is it possible to have a further elaboration of this passage? This is very important. During the past fourteen years I served as a member of a committee of the Board of Trade, one of whose functions was to advise the Board of Trade on matters affecting industrial development. There were representatives of the trade unions and employers and members of local authorities on that Committee. Indeed, last week the Minister met some of the employers from Scotland. These employers are the very people who insist, with the local authorities, that they themselves could take


great steps to try to induce other industrialists to enter this part of the country which is afflicted by unemployment. Among the steps which they suggest is the servicing of sites.
I am anxious to be clear on the wording of this provision. Does it mean that bringing land into use is a question of excavating undulating land and leaving it flat for development, or is it sufficiently wide to make provision for the roads, the water services, the drainage services and all the other services essential for industrial development on these sites?

Mr. Erroll: Mr. Erroll indicated dissent.

Mr. Dempsey: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. 1 am asking for information, because I recognise the difficulties in tackling a problem of this immensity. In loyalty to those on the Board of Industry on which I have served for the past fourteen years, we are entitled to give them an explanation of the implications of subsection (3, b). I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will clarify this point for me: is it the case that this provision is sufficiently wide to include all services or is it restricted only to the acquisition of land and perhaps the levelling of land for the purpose of inducing industries to go into the localities?
If the right hon. Gentleman can answer this question I am convinced that it will clarify the minds of the local authorities and all interested persons who so loyally give up their time voluntarily to assist in promoting employment in these areas.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I regret being a little unkind to the Minister who hoped I was not suffering from insomnia after last night by responding with yet another speech. It is perhaps an ungrateful way of responding to his rather dubiously kindly inquiries; but this is the kind of discussion that matters, whether it is four o'clock in the morning or four o'clock in the afternoon.
As I have listened to the Minister on each of the occasions on which he replied to us last night and today, I have become more and more alarmed by the way in which he was fencing in and restricting and narrowing down the scope and value of the Bill. The Minister went out of his way just now to refer to the Clause 1

financial restrictions. They were emphasised and underlined heavily by him when we were discussing that Clause. I will not go into them now, but I shall talk about his emphasis on the relation of expenditure to the amount of employment created.
In saying all these things the Minister did not have any regard to the percentage or the degree or the severity or the persistance of unemployment in one area as compared with another. For example. if it costs £4,000 in grant or loan to employ 20 or 30 people, as it might in the City of Perth where there is small unemployment, it will obviously cost anything up to twice that amount to relieve the same amount of unemployment in the Islands. Yet unemployment is far more serious and involves far more people and is far more longstanding and persistent in my constituency or in that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). Is that greater consideration to be ignored?
Yet immediately we come up against the question of having to spend more to achieve the same amount of employment, regardless of the total unemployment in the area, the Minister says, "Cut it out. Cut the difficult area out." As soon as it becomes a more difficult or a more expensive matter, it is obviously ruled out in the mind of the Minister from the very start. Before the Bill comes into operation, even before it has come to the Treasury and the Committee for examination, the Minister has said that these areas are out because they need more help than others. It is a strange doctrine and one which I should have thought would not be acceptable to the President of the Board of Trade from his own earlier statement on Second Reading.

Mr. Maudling: It is obvious that in some areas it costs more to create jobs than in other areas. That, of course, will be taken into account. I covered the point.

Mr. MacMillan: I appreciate that it will be taken into account; but, unfortunately, the way in which it has been taken into account in the speech of the Minister of State is in the light of the strict need to limit expenditure of national resources. Of course there is a


broad and overall limitation of what we can command for almost any purpose in our national resources and limits as to how they can be applied, but running away from the problem because there are special difficulties is a cowardly retreat from what we thought was the bold, enterprising purpose of the Bill of aiding areas in special difficulty.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but we are discussing Clause 5, which deals largely with derelict land and not with the main purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: Yes, it does.

Mr. MacMillan: I would not be so disrespectful as to argue with you on that point, Sir William, but the Clause involves finance, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a few moments ago. I shall apply this directly to the question of acquisition of land by agreement or by compulsion, which in both cases involves the expenditure of money under this Bill. When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I became more and more alarmed by what he said about the way in which the money, whatever amount it is—and this we shall not know for some time—will be applied. The Minister obviously meant to say that under Clause 5 he would pay the strictest regard to the restrictive financial considerations to which he referred, mentioning Clause 1 in passing.
I want to underline the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), namely, how widely will this provision be applied to the basic services? I ask this question because I am speaking for one of the many areas in Scotland which suffer most from the lack of the basic services which are essential before any industry will come into the area. It is fundamental that the most generous assistance be given for the provision of adequate basic services. It is part of the inducement for all industry that there shall be available good roads, transport —by air, land, or sea—adequate water supplies for industrial purposes, electricity, the assurance of housing and accommodation generally. How widely will the Minister interpret the application of this Clause in relation to the basic services?
This is important to the industrial areas. It is important to the whole of the United Kingdom; but it is particularly vital to those areas which do not have a chance of getting industries and development unless the basic services they lack are provided. If part of the objection is that it will cost more to provide those services, the Government must remember that it is costing more every year because of the legacy of neglect of the provision of those services. The longer they deny us the basic services on which to base industrial development, the more it will cost and the less we shall presumably get out of the Bill as costs go on rising.
The noble Lord made a touching appeal on the issue of the acquisition of sterile and neglected land by agreement and compulsion. The noble Lord made a great point of avoiding compulsion. Nobody wants to do injustice to anybody in the acquisition of their property. But the assumption on which the noble Lord works is a curious one. It does not always seem to work in our experience of landlords; least of all in the Highlands. As soon as a local authority, a public body or indeed a private firm wants to acquire land, in the middle of the most neglected and sterile wastes of the Highlands, we find leaping out of every Highland bog hordes of lolly-lapping landlords, some of whom had never been heard of before in their lives, even in another place.
There was an interesting example of this to which I gave some publicity here, and which illustrates my point. When the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board wanted to develop land for the purpose of providing electricity, on which all industrial development whether under this or any other Bill must be founded, what happened? Suddenly, Lord Lovat, Sir John Stirling and Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn, one after another, discovered that there was gold in the sterile bogs—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are discussing Clause 5 which has particular regard to derelict land.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. MacMillan: If I may say so, without disrespect to large parts of my constituency and great spaces in the whole of the Highland counties, most of the area there is derelict land—largely as a


result of the conduct of the very people whom the noble Lord was defending a few minutes ago against the operation of the compulsory acquisition provisions of Clause 5.
The Hydro-Electric Board, the Forestry Commission, the local authority and other public agencies and departments are almost alone in providing any considerable employment there is in this area where there is apparently so little inducement for private firms. Immediately they need land for development they become the prey of the very people who have created that sterility and neglect of the land and have failed signally to make any contribution towards its development. I fail to see why we should be so tender about the application of this provision to people like Lord Lovat, and Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn. Why be tender to them about the compulsory acquisition for development of land which either they have neglected or proved unable to improve.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who said that we would be tender?

Mr. MacMillan: The noble Lord.

Mr. Ellis Smith: No. He wanted them administered to bring about greater improvements.

Mr. MacMillan: No. The noble Lord's objection was to the use of compulsory powers where difficulties arise in negotiations for the acquisition of sites on certain neglected land. I am arguing against that view. I do not think that the Minister should be encouraged to be too tender on this point. The noble Lord then said that those sites, by the very fact of their being neglected and having hitherto been unsold and unsaleable, would automatically become available at rock-bottom prices. That is an assumption which people may have a right to make; but it does not work out in practice.
I have quoted one or two examples where a public agency wants to develop its electricity services to the community for domestic purposes, for industry, for agriculture, for local authorities' needs and everything else, and suddenly those rock-bottom priced assets of various kind become gilt-edged. They become really valuable properties for the first time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is the Stock Exchange.

Mr. MacMillan: They do not need any help from the Stock Exchange who are these people with whom we are asked to deal so tenderly. They are the very people who in Lanarkshire and elsewhere have left these great offensive sores of pit heaps on the countryside. They have come from the exploitation of the mineral wealth of Central Scotland and the industrial belt. These gentlemen with the money made there have taken themselves to their Highland estates and have opposed the Hydro-Electric Board, the Forestry Commission, and other development on grounds, very often, of amenity and of the threat to spoil the natural beauty. It is a strange contradiction between the way in which they have made their money and the way in which they are now enjoying the peace and privilege which that money has created for them. Some of them are the very coal owners who are now objectors to the hydro-electric developments and who rob the Hydro-Electric Board and the public purse when we are trying to get basic services and industrial development in that Highland area.
I hope that we can have some answer to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie about the percentage grants in industrial areas which have special difficulties—and in areas with difficulties of distance and past neglect—which caused mounting costs that will be further increased by any further neglect which they may suffer.
I hope that we may have some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he will be a little more generous than he was yesterday and than his hon. Friend was a few minutes ago. We demand to be a little more reassured that we shall not see the complete exclusion of these vast areas which have these long-standing and neglected difficulties. I know that there are hon. Members opposite who represent places like the Highlands and Islands who agree with me. To know that we have only to live in those places where the people have a grave sense of being neglected or of being dealt with by remote control by the Government. It is not only the hon. Member for


Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) who shares these feelings. Other hon. Members opopsite share the same view, because in these matters political barriers disappear in many respects. I hope that those hon. Members will say the things that I have been saying and that the Government will also share our views.

Mr. Tom Brown: I apologise for not having been present when the discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" started. I have been otherwise occupied.
Yesterday, I had some critical words to address to the President of the Board of Trade. I now propose to address one or two words of praise to him. I hope that he is not proposing to leave the Chamber when he is being praised, but perhaps he cannot stand it after the criticism yesterday.
My praise to the President of the Board of Trade is for incorporating this Clause in the Bill. We have been longing and hoping that one day the Government Department responsible would set itself the task of enabling the local authorities to clear up some of the ugly sites which private enterprise created long ago. It is not my intention to incriminate the old colliery owners. I did that years ago.
It was in 1928, thirty-one years ago, when we started a campaign in the district in which I live. At that time a friend of mine who was a Member of this House—not a member of the Labour Party but a member of the then very strong Liberal Party—Alderman Robert Alstead, whose memory I revere, who was also a member of the Wigan Town Council, was obsessed with the idea that the county council and the Government should set themselves the task of clearing up the ugly sites in the River Douglas valley.
The President of the Board of Trade and his Department have now afforded an opportunity for us and those members of the local authorities in the mining areas who are now face to face with a situation such as they have never faced before of doing something to clear up the ugly sites. I have in my mind's eye at the present moment the site which I look upon every day when I am at home.

Opposite my front window is a vast expanse of water covering many acres and just beyond on the horizon is a vast pit heap two and a half miles long, to which the National Coal Board is adding every day. The situation is now becoming aggravated. Consequently, I feel that Clause 5, which deals with derelict land, gives us a chance to do something to clear up ugly sites which are legacies of the past.
I have taken the opportunity in days gone by of calling the attention of the Board of Trade and various other Government Departments to the importance of clearing up derelict land. A few months ago, before the last Parliament was dissolved, I discussed the matter with the then President of the Board of Trade, who has now gone to the Ministry of Education, and I submitted to him the suggestion that it would be a good thing and in the interests of amenity value if he would make a survey of the north-west area of Lancashire with the object of subsequently putting before the House a proposal to clear up some of the ugly sites. He said it was worth while considering the suggestion. The Department may have considered it. Perhaps this is the result of its consideration of the suggestion which I made in all honesty and with profound sincerity and a profound desire to see our industrial areas cleared up.
In my area we have been busily engaged—not with the assistance of the Government, because they have no power to help—and have just cleared 31 acres.

Mr. Ellis Smith: No help at all?

Mr. Brown: The only assistance that the local council got towards clearing up the 31 acres was a grant of £1,750 from the Ministry of Education because we decided to turn the land into playing fields. 1 have in my possession a plan of what has been done. I hope that next April a member of the Royal Family will open the playing fields. I feel that if we can clear up 31 acres of ugly land we are accomplishing something for the benefit of the present generation and future generations.
It may amaze hon. Members to know that there is a mining area in my constituency which has four and a half acres per head of the population either under


water or devoted to pit heaps. Let hon. Members visualise that—four and a half acres per head of the population of pit heaps and flashes.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister must know that because he supported opencast mining.

Mr. Brown: The Minister may know. Past Ministers may have known because Ministers in the present Government and preceding Governments have been made fully aware from time to time of our desire that these sites should be cleared up.
In another area there was not a square yard of land upon which to build houses. In the light of the housing situation in industrial areas, let hon. Members imagine a local authority which desires to meet the housing needs of the people but cannot find a square yard of ground upon which to build. Happily, reclamation carried out in the last few years has provided a site which has made it possible to build 82 houses. Is that not an accomplishment? Is it not something which ought to inspire and encourage the Government to go forward with the operation of Clause 5?
I beg the Government to move with greater speed in the future than they have done in the past. It is speed that we want. It has taken us four and a half years to reclaim 31 acres. We ought to move quicker than that. We ought to have more go, more determination and more courage. If former mine owners and land owners stand in the way of the provision of additional amenities for the people they ought to be moved away as quickly as possible.
I have the greatest pleasure in the world in supporting the Clause. I profoundly hope that when the Bill becomes an Act the Board of Trade will not introduce red tape and hold up the operation of the Section, but will give all the encouragement and inspiration that is required so the local authorities will go forward full steam ahead to clear up the ugly sites. Anyone who has lived in a mining area surrounded by pit heaps and devastation knows that these things have a tendency to destroy the souls of the people living there. Consequently, I hope that we shall go forward with all speed so that we shall be rid of the legacy of derelict land

and devastation left by the people who extracted the wealth from the ground in the county in which I live.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) that we should act urgently to do something about the situation. I also agree with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm Macmillan) and Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). I hope answers will be given to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie.
I wish to raise a matter which is peculiar to Scotland. I have waited an hour and a half to do so because there was no Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench earlier. I understand from one of my local authorities—this view has been confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter)—that the objects of the Clause will not be fully achieved as it is at present drafted. I tabled an Amendment to remedy this, but it was not selected. The Clause provides for grants to local authorities towards the acquisition and improvement of derelict land.
In the case of Scotland, the authorities concerned are the local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. Subsection (3) provides for the payment of grants:
towards the cost of the exercise of any power of the council to acquire
such land. I am informed that this would restrict the exercise of the power to such land as might be used by the authority for the purpose of one of the authority's own function. For instance, I am informed that, as the Clause stands, the power could be used by a planning authority, a county council, within the landward area of the county but not within any of the burghs. In other words, the work which is supposed to be done under the Clause could not be done in those localities.
It has been suggested that at the end of the Clause should be added the words:
and the local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947".
I understand that without those words what the Government seek to do in the


case of the small burghs could not be done. It is conceivable that a small burgh might be one of the specified localities. I am informed that the only way to get the work done is to put the words which I have suggested at the end of the Clause.
I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee, but this is an important matter which concerns the whole of Scotland. We want the Bill to be effective, and the Government have said they want it to be effective. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to give us a satisfactory answer. Does the Clause mean what I have suggested it means and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity on Report of correcting the position? We should like some guidance and to hear from the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Ross: In replying to the first part of the debate, the hon. Gentleman seemed to expect that I should be overjoyed and that I should be prepared to cover him with profuse congratulations when in answer to one of my questions about the costs involved in the Clause he said that he could not tell me. I would not have been at all surprised if he had left it at that, but he went on to tell me that I should have appreciated that and he referred me to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that the Government do not know what the whole cost of the Bill will be. I thought that that was a little much on the part of the hon. Gentleman.
I asked not for the cost of the whole Bill, but whether any estimate had been made of the cost of dealing with derelict sites. That is a much simpler demand. I asked how much the Treasury was prepared to pay to meet the cost of these provisions in one year. I should have thought that such calculations would have been made before the Bill was presented. Last night the hon. Gentleman was able to tell us about the cost of allowances for the advisory committees and was able to say that a couple of thousand £s had been paid to a firm in respect of the services of one of its members. He should not now be surprised that we ask him to tell us the cost of operating the Clause.
It is one of the most amazing things about the Bill, which is claimed to be

a major Bill well considered and thought out, that the Government proclaim their ignorance and expect us to thank them for it. They expect us to be satisfied with such replies. They cannot tell us what the areas are and they cannot tell us which areas are to be covered. They cannot tell us the cost of the whole Bill and they cannot tell us the cost of dealing with derelict sites. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) did not hear the speech of the Minister of State, because my hon. Friend would not then have been proclaiming that at last there was a hope of some great sweeping Measure to clear Britain of its sad industrial heritage of neglected property, decaying and unsightly land. The hon. Gentleman was quite frank and told us that the provisions were restricted by Clause 1. He said that there was a further restriction in that it was a question not of the employment which would be provided in clearing up the sites, but of the prospect of employment following directly from the fact that a site had been cleared. We cannot look for any great, sweeping Measure.
He cannot tell us what local authorities which are faced with this grave problem will be given to help them to pursue this task. He must know something. He has told us that the grant is not to be 100 per cent., so it is clear that the Government have made up their minds on something. If it is not to be 100 per cent., what is the grant to be? The hon. Gentleman told us that it would vary according to circumstances. I shall not press him to explain what he means by that, but he ought to be able to tell us the level of the ceiling of the grant. 1 am sure that he has a list of areas and I am sure that he has a good idea of what the grant will be, but the Government will not be frank about what is involved.
The Government are treating the House of Commons with discourtesy and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite, who for weeks proclaimed that the Labour Party should know to the last farthing what legislation cost, should be prepared to adopt their present attitude towards what they claim to be a major Measure and which, according to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who appears to have inside information, is


the only major Measure to be put forward in this Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman say that they do not know what the cost of these provisions will be, hon. Members opposite silently accept the position. I wonder what the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance would have said if he had been in Opposition with such a Measure before the House of Commons. Hon. Members opposite are annoyed about being kept up for one night, but we can remember the right hon. Gentleman speaking from these benches day after day and night after night.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my hon. Friend imagine what the Minister of Pensions would have said if the Labour Government had introduced proposals to rebuild No. 10 Downing Street at a cost of £1,250,000?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James FL Hoy): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going just a little too far.

Mr. Ross: It is going a little too far. It is the Government who are going far too far in their failure to satisfy the natural right of the House of Commons to information about the cost of legislation.
We should have been given a figure, albeit that it varied between 50 per cent. to, say, 85 per cent. The Government should have given an estimate of the cost in the first year, for instance. A target must have been set and the Treasury must have said how much it was prepared to set aside for these purposes. These are queries which need replies and I hope that the Minister of State will try again. If he does not give us the information we want, he will not expect us to go on our knees and touch the ground in praise of his efforts.
I asked him a number of questions and I do not think that he answered half of them. I shall not repeat them, but some were questions of considerable importance. He volunteered the information that if a piece of land was unsightly, that was enough to make it eligible for treatment under the Bill. I asked him whether "land" included "buildings". He did not answer. I asked whether, if that were the case, unsightly buildings could be treated, even if they were

occupied, because of the way that subsection (1) was drawn, but again he did not answer.
We are entitled to answers because the information is important to hon. Members who have to advise local authorities who are interested in these matters. If the Minister does not give us the required information, are we to leave it to the courts to interpret these provisions?
7.0 p.m.
It is not good enough. We have not had the help of the Lord Advocate or any other Minister during our discussions. I asked why the Clause was worded in an ungrammatical way. My question was ignored. Point after point was not dealt with. If the Minister has decided not to deal with the minor points that we have put to him, I hope that he will at least deal with the major ones. What grant can a local authority expect? What is the lowest grant, and what is the maximum grant that it can expect to receive? Can the Minister satisfy the people behind him about what it will cost?

Mr. Willis: And where the money is coming from.

Mr. Ross: I asked that question too. The Treasury is not mentioned in subsections (1) and (2). I referred to the words "if so authorised". The Minister replied that that was because the grants would be authorised under other legislation. If the grant is to be authorised under other legislation, those words are unnecessary. The Government would not be allowed to do what was not authorised. We hear tautologous phrases and a lot of unnecessary verbiage. Cannot we get reasonable assistance from the Minister? We are anxious for information.

Mr. Manuel: Earlier, I appealed to the Minister of State to be a little more forthcoming and earn the gratitude of the Committee. We would then be able to proceed somewhat faster with our consideration of the Bill. After hearing the Minister of State, the restrictions against the clearance of these eyesores are more evident than ever.
Many of the areas in which these conditions are to be found were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for


Ince (Mr. T. Brown). Persistent unemployment exists in those areas and the Minister appears to be tying himself to the principle that there must be continuing unemployment before these eyesores are removed. I want to put this to him straight and I want a straight answer. In some areas where there is high and persistent unemployment there are colliery bings and derelict sites. There is no hope of attracting industry to those areas. Is the Minister saying that because there will not be continuing unemployment after these sites are cleared the men and women in those areas are to remain permanently unemployed? Is he creating the condition that before these people get any hope for the future there is to be complete depopulation of the area?
The Minister cannot have it both ways. If there is no work available after the collieries close and he is not prepared to give a little injection of assistance to clear these sites, by the time he takes such measures as are necessary to attract industries the people will have left the area. Depopulation will occur and we will again face the spectacle that some of us are acquainted with in areas which once had a community and a life of their own but are now slowly dying.
If that is the line that the Minister is taking with these dying areas—if he regards depopulation as the only cure—he is, in effect, saying that he wants to add to the problems of congestion in our already over-populated areas. That will be the result. People from those areas will go into our larger towns and cities and kill the very thing that the Government say they are trying to do under the Bill. The Bill could be a real measure of succour for the areas where collieries are closing.
One area in need of the help that could be provided under the Clause is the Highland area. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr Malcolm MacMillan) has been most eloquent in advocating help for the Highlands. I too, have appealed for help for the Highlands, and at the same time have dealt with problems affecting my own constituency. Surely the President of the Board of Trade has evidence about the steady decline and depopulation of the Highland areas that were once

populous and prosperous. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to give us information?
I remember reading about a play which ran for a couple of years in London.

Mr. Ross: The Bill will not run for a couple of years.

Mr. Manuel: It was called "Reluctant Heroes". The Minister of State is a very reluctant hero so far as the Bill is concerned, because he is giving away nothing that could be of benefit to the areas I am talking about.
I do not want to be out of order. I am directly on the target in discussing the Highland areas. Clause 5 (2) says:
… for improving the amenities of the neighbourhood.
In Scotland, we had high hopes about the Tourist Board and its activities. Our tourism—

The Chairman: That point does not arise on the Clause which we are now discussing.

Mr. Manuel: There have been allocations of money to improve the amenities and facilities for the tourist industry in Scotland.

The Chairman: That has not been done under this Clause.

Mr. Manuel: The money has been provided to improve the amenities, and subsection (2) contains the words, "for improving the amenities." That is what the Tourist Board is doing.

The Chairman: That may be so, but amenities for the Tourist Board are not dealt with under the Clause that we are discussing.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Surely it is in order to argue that the Tourist Board, or the local authority, might acquire a derelict site in the Highlands for the purpose of erecting an hotel? As I understand the Clause, it would be in order for the local authority or the Board to do that.

Mr. Manuel: I understand that grants have been made for the purpose of improving amenities— additions to hotels, and things of that kind. I do not want to get out of order, Sir Gordon, and I shall depart from the point when I have


given two figures. The grant in the current year in connection with improving amenities in respect of tourism is £15,000.

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Clause.

Mr. Manuel: Dealing with the words in subsection (2)—sticking definitely to the definition of "amenities" under the Clause—there has been an allocation of £15,000 towards improving amenities in Scotland.

The Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Clause. I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Clause.

Mr. Manuel: Then I must go a much longer way about it. I must now deal with all the derelict land in the Highland counties in order to get my point over. In the seven Highland counties, many areas are having extreme difficulty in attracting tourists because of the eyesores caused by derelict property and dying villages. There used to be pretty fishing villages and a nice coastline, but they are falling into neglect and decay. I hope the Minister of State can throw some kind of lifeline to them. He turned down a similar suggestion to help the Highland counties under Clause 1; can they now be given help in connection with amenities, as laid down in subsection (2) of this Clause?
Money could be made available—under what auspices I do not know. I hope that some solution can be found to these problems, which are so evident throughout Scotland, especially in areas suffering from depopulation owing to colliery closures and so on.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

The Chairman: The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend was on his feet.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Willis: I raised a serious point in connection with local authorities in Scotland which I thought would be of help to the Government. My question was whether, as the Clause was worded, it would do what the Board of Trade

wanted to do in Scotland. It was not a propaganda speech or a delaying tactic. It was a serious inquiry. I saw the Joint Under-Secretary seek some information about the point, but I do not know whether he found the answer. This is an important question to all the small burghs in the county concerned, and also to the county council. Before we leave the Clause, we should at least be told whether it will operate in the way I suggested without being amended, or whether it requires amendment, and the Amendment will be made on Report. Will the Joint Under-Secretary reply?
It seems that the hon. Member will not reply. This is a discourteous way to treat Scottish local authorities. This problem is serious to Scotland. I was making the point in an endeavour to help the Government. The point cannot be dealt with by the Minister of State because he does not know anything about Scottish law, and nobody expects him to. This is a question which should be answered by the Scottish Office, and it is not good enough to try to push the Clause through without answering questions on it. Some of the questions we have asked might perhaps be ignored, but not this serious one, which affects local authorities in Scotland and determines whether the Clause can be made properly effective there. I should like to know what the answer is.

7.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): As a Minister I am entitled to take part in a discussion on the Clause. As I apprehend it, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) wishes to have a reply on the question he has raised with regard to local authorities. I think it would be right for my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to the hon. Member. That is reasonable, and it shall be done.
I merely want to say a few words on the passage of the Clause, and the Bill. There was an understanding between both sides that the Bill would be finished in four days. We sat very late last night, and I would remind hon. Members that the people who suffer more than we do are the staff of the House—the policemen and all those who have to attend. That is undoubtedly the position, and every hon. Member knows it


in his heart. The Government have several courses open to them. They can again put the House to great inconvenience by having a late night sitting, which is a distinct possibility and which might prejudice business for the coming day, if we are to get the Bill through as we must do and intend to do.
An alternative would be to take extra time for the Bill. This cannot be taken out of Government time, because we have already allocated all the Government time for the rest of the period before Christmas. Therefore, the only logical process would be for it to come out of the time allocated to the Opposition.

Mr. Manuel: Is this a threat?

Mr. Butler: No, it is not a threat. I am merely putting forward the physical possibilities, subject only to the statement that we must get the Bill through. I have agreed that the Joint Under-Secretary shall reply to the hon. Member. I should like hon. Members to realise that if the present situation continues the Government will have no alternative but to adopt one or other of the courses that I have put before hon. Members in order that the Committee stage of the Bill can be completed before Christmas. There is absolutely no alternative, and we should realise that with a little give and take—

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I was repeatedly pulled up by you, Sir Gordon—and quite correctly so—for not keeping strictly to the scope of the Clause. Do I take it that the Leader of the House is completely immune from the rules and orders which apply to ordinary back benchers?

The Chairman: Technically the right hon. Member's speech should have been made on the Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again".

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Hamilton: Will hon. Members on this side of the Committee be entitled to reply to the very provocative statement made by the Home Secretary? We can make a very devastating reply, and if we are in order we shall do so.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely the Home Secretary will respond to the very direct suggestion made to him that he should put himself in order by moving to report Progress. He made a speech which was undoubtedly directed to the question of the way in which we should continue with the further consideration of the Bill, and he posed various alternatives, including the possibility of continuing all night or allocating an extra day next week. Surely it is impossible for anybody on this side of the Committee to pursue the line of thought suggested to us by the Home Secretary in his intervention unless the whole matter is now regularised either by the Home Secretary moving to report Progress, as I suggest, or by one of my right hon. Friends moving a similar Motion.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do this simply in order to make a few brief comments on what the Leader of the House has said. The best way to have saved time would have been for the Joint Under-Secretary to respond at once to the question put to him, but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I would merely make the comment that although we all agree that the debates on the Bill should proceed in a reasonable but thorough manner the Leader of the House—who is naturally not present as frequently as the rest of us—should be reminded of the fact that a number of speeches have been made, especially today, by hon. Members opposite as well as by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
I must also remind the right hon. Gentleman—the President of the Board of Trade will confirm this—that both today and yesterday we on this side of the Committee have refrained from moving quite a number of important Amendments in order to help the discussion, on the understanding—but of course with no assurance—that these Amendments would be taken on Report. I think the right hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind. However, I agree with him, and I hope that we shall proceed in a reasonable but a thorough manner, and that, if it is in order, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be allowed to give the reply


which, had he given it ten minutes ago, would have saved a lot of time.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. May I have an answer to the question which I asked, whether we have the right to answer the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in the speech which he made?

The Chairman: A Motion has been moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again." I thought that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) moved it.

Mr. Jay: I did, but I am quite willing to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Manuel: I want to repudiate—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Manuel: —very definitely—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Macpherson.

Mr. Manuel: No.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Sir Gordon—

Mr. Manuel: Are you putting the Question, Sir Gordon, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again", and not the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: I understood that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North withdrew his Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Ross: It was not agreed that the Motion should be withdrawn.

Mr. Manuel: On this point—

The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on the Motion?

Mr. Ross: Is not it the case, Sir Gordon, that when a Motion has been moved and an hon. Member seeks to withdraw it, if another hon. Member stands up to continue the debate, automatically the Motion cannot be withdrawn?

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. Manuel: I wish to repudiate the insinuations made by the Leader of the House that we on this side of the Committee caused great disturbance, trouble and difficulty to the staff of this House. We were doing our job here last night—those of us who are faced with great unemployment difficulties in their constituencies—in discussing this Bill and we were in order and under the control of the Chair during the whole time.
I would draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what happened in the 1950 Parliament when we on this side of the House were in Office with a narrow majority and when the House was kept up night after night with the connivance of the right hon. Gentleman—and possibly by his direction—and we had to go to St. Thomas's Hospital and bring out hon. Members who were patients there and convey them through the Lobbies in order to keep the then Government in being. I think it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to came into the Chamber and take part in the debate at this stage when we have been doing our best to get this Bill through—[Laughter.] The "chaff" which was blown into the House during the last election does not know when it is in order or out of order. Hon. Members opposite do not even know what this Bill is about, and many of them are not concerned.
I wish to repudiate what was said by the Leader of the House. If it were possible to take a plebiscite of the staff of the House, it would be found that the majority of the support would be for us, and the opinion would be that we have not been deliberately creating difficulty and inconvenience for the staff. I challenge any hon. Member to say that that was our intention.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will respond at once to the intervention of the hon. Member for Central Ayreshire (Mr. Manuel). I was not criticising him in any way. It was perfectly normal that we should sit late last night. I was saying that if we have to sit late again tonight, and perhaps right through the night, in order to dispose of the Committee stage of this Bill, it will mean that for the second night running there will be a late sitting. Many of us who have been kept late on other occasions have had such an experience. I hasten to say


that I escaped last night and so I am free from the fatigue which may be felt by other hon. Members who have been doing their duty so manfully. But I meant, and I said, that I think it would create strain were we to go on for a second late sitting, especially as there was an understanding between the two sides of the Committee that we should finish the discussions on this Bill in four days.
The intervention of the right hon. Member for Batersea, North (Mr. Jay) was quite in tune with my own, that we should get on with the debate, and that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I simply wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if we have to sit perhaps right through the night again, we run a risk of prejudicing the business for tomorrow, or some of the debates arranged for next week, which in my view would not be in the interests of the House.
The one constant factor is that we intend to get the Bill and I do not want the Committee, by spending too long on it, to prejudice the business which hon. Members might want to take next week. I think that is a reasonable proposition. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for moving his Motion. I hope he will now seek to withdraw it so that we may continue with the business in as reasonable an atmosphere as we can.

Mr. Jay: If it is the view of the Committee that that would be the most expeditious way to proceed, I will willingly withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House simply cannot treat the Committee in this way. If he wished the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to my hon. Friend, he himself need not have spoken. He could have said to his hon. Friend, "Get up and reply to the reasonable points which were made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)." It is humbug for the right hon. Gentleman, in the guise of throwing out a compromise suggestion to hon. Members on this side of the Committee who represent Scottish con-

stituencies, to place us in the position of being thought to be prejudicing the health of every member of the staff of this House.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is determined to get the Bill. One would think that the House of Commons was under great pressure, and that there was a shortage of time. We are proposing to rise for the Christmas Recess a week earlier than is normal. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to deal with the Bill, let us sit for an extra week before rising for the Christmas Recess. I should have no objection, and I do not think that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have unemployment problems in their constituencies would mind either.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that if he wants to proceed with the discussions on this Bill, he might advise the representatives of the Board of Trade to be more forthcoming in their replies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked several pointed questions about the cost of provisions contained in Clause 5. He asked during the discussion of detailed Amendments to the Clause and he put the same question on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He recalled the General Election campaign, when every item in the Labour Party's programme was analysed and we were asked for specific costs of projects, and, indeed, we provided them.
Now, when we ask what will be the cost of the provisions contained in Clause 5, we receive no reply from the Minister. Therefore. the Leader of the House should not be surprised when we take exception to him coming in and asking how we are getting on and saying, "I will threaten them"—because that is what the right hon. Gentleman has done.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The actual effect of my intervention was to invite my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to respond to the difficulties of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, and my hon. Friend was very ready to do so. I suggest that we proceed because that would be the best way of answering the questions relating to Scotland. If hon. Members will allow th Motion to be withdrawn I think we can proceed, and my hon. Friend the


Joint Under-Secretary of State can reply to the hon. Members who referred to problems relating to Scotland.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: I have not finished yet. I would remind him that an one occasion last week we made the same kind of appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. After two or three speeches from this side, the Government Chief Whip passed a message along the Bench. He did not get up at the Box, but passed a message along the Bench, saying to the Secretary of State that, in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), he had better say something. The Secretary of State got up and made a speech of about two minutes, which was quite a long speech on this Bill for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Leader of the House could have made the same indication to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotalnd, without making the kind of speech he did. Undoubtedly, he was threatening this side of the Committee, saying how undesirable it was to have two all-night sittings consecutively. But this Parliament is young, and we have any amount of time in which to recover from the ill effects of two late nights. If we are not prepared to sit for two nights in succession, we can sit for the extra week before Christmas which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to give to the House. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will not be browbeaten into allowing the important provisions of this Bill that are yet to come to go through by default.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am surprised that this situation has arisen. I have known the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary for many years, and they both know that provided that Commitees of this character are treated in a reasonable manner they usually respond.
The way in which this arose is due to the fact that yesterday we were presented with an ultimatum. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] I am speaking for my hon. Friends and for myself in particular, because the difference between me and a number of other hon. Members is that for many years I have worked for my living. Where I worked for my living, we were subject to more ruthless driving—I am not complaining of that

—but those concerned all knew that we could be reasoned with but would never be bullied.
Therefore, today, the atmosphere has been as reasonable, decent and harmonious as it was possible for it to be, and had the Leader of the House been present all day today he would have been very pleased with the way we were all getting on together. A delay arose, and I admit that, and I saw the annoyance expressing itself in the indignant look on the face of the Patronage Secretary. I saw him look at the Chair and speak several times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I have seen the running about that has gone on on both sides of the Committee, and, so far as we are concerned, we are prepared to be reasoned with but not to be bullied. We have been present doing our duty, but other people who have not been seen for weeks have been patted on the back. We shall have to wait until television comes; then we shall see all that is going on, and the whole country will see what is going on. They will see who is who and who is doing his duty. I wish we could have it now, because people would then see the difference between
the dilettantes who appear in "Panorama" occasionally and the right hon. and hon. men and women who do their duty in this House. That is what my hon. Friends have been doing for the last day or two, and I assure the Leader of the House that that is so.
The right hon. Gentleman need not become indignant on a matter like this. If he could only maintain his usual reasonable manner and approach to the problem, he will see what the trouble is here. We are as much concerned for the staff as anyone else. They are our close friends. We could not be better treated than we are by the police and the staff of this House. Therefore, we have to regret the inconvenience, but we were not responsible for the late sitting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has been suffering for weeks and ought not to be here. If he had been acting on his doctor's advice, he would not have been here, but he has made a special effort to make his contribution on this Bill because the area which he represents has been blighted by industrial development for


a hundred and fifty years. He has made several contributions, as other hon. Friends of mine have done. Some of them will be in the Tea Room now, or in the "Coalition" Smoke Room. If they were here, they would be joining us in making a plea to the Leader of the House to let us carry on in the way we have done in the past.
There is no reason for us to get indignant about this. I admit that the new Patronage Secretary has had great experience, but his experence is not the same as that of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. When he has a little more experience of these debates, he may be more generous in his approach to the problem than by bringing in the Leader of the House.

Mr. Manuel: Did he bring in the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am not sure, but I should think he would have done. I have been long enough in the House to have complete confidence that he would not have done it on his own. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to accept what I am saying as being right and reasonable, and so make allowances for my hon. Friends, and for myself as well, and let us carry on with the business.

Mr. Ede: As usual, the Leader of the House has made a speech of the utmost sweet reasonableness, but I wish he had been here during the day when the discussion was going on. Quite rightly, he pleaded that there should be some give and take. I have listened to a great many of these debates, and certainly there has been nothing given by the Government on this Bill so far. Therefore, we have been unable to take anything. I am in favour of voluntary time-tables, but these can only work in the atmosphere which the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to create. I wish him well in his efforts to do so, but I can assure him that the cause of our present difficulties does not rest with this side of the Committee.

Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, put, and negatived.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Perhaps I may now reply in a reasonable

way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh. East (Mr. Willis). The point he raises is a highly technical one, but I think I can give him a reasonably satisfactory answer. I will say straight away to him that he has raised a point which we will look at again, but as I am advised, what he is worried about is that the powers in Clause 3 will not apply to small burghs. For example, I am advised that it would allow a planning authority to acquire land in its area as planning authority. If the hon. Gentleman will look at line 31, he will see the words—
within whose area the land in question is situated.
It is not the area that is defined for the purposes of the local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, but it is the local authority that is defined for this purpose. Therefore, as I understand it, a local planning authority would be able to acquire land in any part of its area as the local planning authority. I will, however, look at the matter again, and I hope that we will be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. William Baxter: If a local planning area is under the control of a county council and a small burgh is designated as a Development Area in the county council area, the proper functioning may be prohibited if there is not more clarification.

Mr. Macpherson: In a small burgh, it would be competent, in so far as it has powers under 3 (a), for it to receive grants for the exercise of those powers in its area.

Mr. Willis: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a certain amount of confusion owing to the different powers possessed by different authorities and over-lapping. If he goes into that and perhaps lets me know the answer later, I will, if necessary, put down an Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BASIC SERVICES.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the end to insert:
including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the provision of


facilities for transport (whether by road, rail, water, or air) or of power, lighting or heating, and housing, health, and other services in or affecting the locality".
It will be obvious that our purpose in moving this Amendment is to define more fully what is intended by the expression, "basic service". The words we have in the Amendment are lifted directly from Section 3 of the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act. I realise, and I think we all realise, that because those words were written into that Act they are not necessarily the right words to adopt at this time. It may be that something slightly different from the words then used would be appropriate today; but we have not understood hitherto that the Government intend drastically to reduce the amount of basic services for which financial assistance will he given under the Bill. We have understood that the Government asserted all along that their intention in the main in repealing existing legislation and putting this Bill in its place was to extend rather than to narrow the powers. In Clause 7, it would appear that the powers have been narrowed, or at least the expression "basic service" as defined in subsection (2) is a great deal narrower than the definition in the 1945 Act.
Speaking on Second Reading on 9th November. the President of the Board of Trade said:
But the specific powers in the Bill are intended to refer to such things as local access roads. the strengthening of bridges for heavy loads or possibly the provision of bridges; in other words, the specific provision locally of transport facilities, or the provision of an eleotricity system or other facilities which would be of great use in particular cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613. c. 43.]
I think the words used by the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion would be construed differently by different people. Some might think it a rather wide definition of basic service, but I got the view that he was seeking to convey that he was concerned with purely local services and not proposing wider Clause 7 to give any assistance to any services which were national.
In the 1945 Act, undoubtedly a number of services which were national services with application in the local area were assisted under Section 3, which was the appropriate Section in that Act. In the course of these discussions, we have listened to what has

been said from the Government Front Bench about the kind of localities to be listed. We have been told that there will be small localities, but "localities" is an elastic term, and there will be some large areas. What we all want in Clause 7 is provision that the appropriate Minister should be able to give additional financial assistance to a local authority area for the provision of any service which the local authority is obliged to provide.
7.45 p.m.
The original intention of writing Section 3 into the 1945 Act was to take account of the relative poverty of the areas in which there was and had been for some time a high level of unemployment. The intention was to give additional assistance in those areas for the provision of services, but the services could be highways, not only serving a small area but a wider area. We had provision for transport services of all—not only roads and what ran on
them—and the definition was wide enough, as it is with our Amendment. to include transport
by road, rail, water, or air.
Those words were in the 1945 Act and it might not be a bad thing to include them now, especially for the more remote parts of the country.
We have been talking about areas which must be included in the Bill where the provision of facilities for air transport are essential to the well-being of those areas and there has been much talk about the need to provide helicopter services for outlying islands. In 1945, we were not throwing the net too wide by bringing all these things into the definition of services of a local authority which could include:
…power, lighting or heating, and housing, health, and other services in or affecting the locality".
It seems that even now many areas must be listed under the Bill to receive special help because of need for the improvement of many of the services, not necessarily all of them, but many of the services mentioned in the definition from which I have quoted. There will be a lack of ability locally to meet the cost of providing those services. Then there will be the need for the appropriate Minister to make fuller provision by increased grants to the authority providing the services.


In the hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to meet us on this, we put forward the Amendment, which I think is a reasonable proposition. We are not tied to these words. We took the words out of the 1945 Act thinking they were the best basis to be used on this occasion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us.

Mr. Maudling: The purpose of this Amendment is to change the definition of "basic service" and to make it virtually the same as that in Section 3 of the Act of 1945. In principle, I have no objection to an Amendment of this character, and I should be happy to undertake to insert something like this in the Bill, but there are two points on which I should like to vary it.
I think it would be a mistake to include housing, because I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he already has powers under existing legislation. He has powers, for example, to pay subsidies to assist in the provision of housing for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of a local authority in order to meet the urgent needs of industry. He also has powers to pay a subsidy to local authorities faced with an urgent need to provide more housing accommodation and unable to do so without charging unreasonably high rents or placing an unreasonable burden on the rates. It is therefore fairly clear that there are already powers in respect of housing.
The second improvement which can be made in the Amendment arises from the fact that it makes no reference to sewerage. I am told that that is often very important in these matters. We want to include that in the Amendment. We should be willing to put down an Amendment on Report omitting housing and inserting sewerage. I have now scored two out of three this afternoon, and I hope that on that undertaking hon. Members opposite will be satisfied.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. All the time we are discussing the details of the Bill, however, we have not before us the list of localities which will be scheduled. He knows that one of the most important problems in my area, for

instance, is that of communications in and out. Let us assume that when localities are specified the South Wales Development Area is split. If it is split and one part is specified and the other is not, is he sure that the provision by which the more remote areas are completely linked with the main roads will not be excluded by any changes which may be made in the list?

Mr. Cyril Bence: May I raise the question of water supplies? If we visualised extensive industrial development in the Eastern part of Dunbartonshire over five or six years, the problem of water supplies would be serious. I believe that as the years pass we shall more and more see the need of an integrated national water supply in order to bring about a reasonable distribution of water to developing areas. Many people outside industry do not appreciate what an important factor water is to the majority of industrial enterprises. It is surprising how much frustration arises in laying down industrial plant in an area because of the difficulty of the water supply.
The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded the need for adequate sewerage. I am glad that he has done so. I am sure that the burgh of Kirkintilloch in my constituency, which for five years has been fighting for an adequate grant to develop its sewerage system, will be pleased to hear that under the Bill it will be able to get an increased grant.
I turn, next, to transport. In Dunbartonshire, and I feel sure in Stirling-shire and around Airdrie and Coatbridge, there are many bridges over the Firth of Forth and the Clyde Canal which are of the last century. It is difficult to take a motor car over them, let alone a lorry. This means that people have to make a very big detour. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) know of the little wooden bridge at Twechar. Its inadequacy causes a detour of several miles, because it is impossible to cross it with anything bigger than a motor cycle or a very light car.
There are a dozen bridges in this area, and I hope that the building of new bridges over the canal will be permitted under the Clause. I assume that transport is included in the Clause, and a


bridge is a facility for transport. I am sure that the bridges of which I have spoken frustrate efficiency in these areas, which in the next ten years may well become developing industrial areas.

Sir James Duncan: I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Dunhartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said about water supplies. A water supply may be sufficient for the existing size of a town, but if industry is introduced into the town the situation is immediately changed. An industry might be introduced which would use much more water. If we are to have industries in these areas we must see that there is enough water for them. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the provision of sewerage. Sewerage and water supply go together; one cannot have a piped water supply without sewerage.
Another question is that of pollution. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows this, but the Firth of Forth is filthy. No salmon can get up it because of the pollution Hon. Members are now talking in terms of industrial effluent. I therefore hope that the reference to sewage will also include a reference to anti-pollution provisions so that if the sewage is eventually taken into the rivers, it will first have been properly treated and will not kill the fish.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry to have to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the Amendment has been on the Order Paper for some days, and if the Government had reached the decision which has been announced by the President of the Board of Trade, why could they not have put down their own Amendment at this stage? That would have saved the necessity for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). The Government could straightaway have pointed out that the words were on the Order Paper.
This would have saved a lot of time when we reach Report and would have made the proceedings of the Committee a great deal sweeter than they have been, because, as far as I can see, all the concessions which we have been promised so far have been in the same category; we have to wait until Report before we see them and know whether they are worth while.

Mr. Page: I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider what he said about the omission of housing from his proposed Amendment. He quoted to us the various powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make advances, but all those powers were in respect of advances to local authorities.
The Clause allows a Government Department to make advances in respect of basic services
to such persons and in such manner as appear to him"—
the Minister concerned—
appropriate for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
In other words, it need not make advances to local authorities to provide the basic services. It might be better on occasion to make the advance to an industrial undertaking or to some board or company undertaking the work. If housing is to be excluded from the Amendment, then no advance could be made to any concern of that sort to provide housing for the employees of the industrial undertaking which it was developing.
It is appropriate to include housing with all the other basic services, for the powers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government are not sufficient to comply with what is required under the Clause. He can advance only to local authorities under the powers which have been quoted to us and not
to such persons and in such manner as appear to him appropriate",
using the words in the Clause.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to support the hope and the comments of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about housing. The point he made is extremely important.
Before I come to that, may I say that we welcome the Minister's undertaking. But those of us who have been given to feel during the last few days that our areas may not be embraced by the Bill still have misgivings about the application of this concession, when it is made. It is extremely difficult for some of us representing areas of high unemployment in the outlying parts of the country. and who have not been given the undertaking that we will be embraced by the Bill, merely to bless this concession and to say, "That is fine".


It is good to know that it will do good somewhere; but at the same time we should like to know where it will apply and we have not been told by the Minister. We have asked over and over again for this information. What the Minister said will be very welcome in my area—if it has application there. If I knew that the area would be included in the list of areas to benefit under the Bill, I would welcome it without any reservations.
8.0 p.m.
Are we to be given no answer by the Minister? Is the area to be included, or is it not? This is vitally important to nearly half of Scotland—the Highlands and Islands—where there are some of the worst pockets of unemployment in the country. Unemployment is to be one of the criteria for the application of provisions of the Bill, when enacted. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us if it will apply to these afflicted areas. what on earth is the good discussing the value of the concession he says that he will make?
I appeal to the Minister to give us an answer. It is directly relevant to ask if this is to be any good to the areas which most of all require the assistance of the Clause. Can we have no reply on that from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland or from the President of the Board of Trade? Is there no word of assurance or comfort to the whole of the Highlands and Islands, or to any part of them? This is startling. Nearly half of Scotland, territorially, is excluded from any prospect of help under the Bill. I have never seen such a thing in my life. This is statutory exclusion from the benefits of legislation by a decision of the Government. Their silence is a policy declaration, They are now leaving out the whole of that area from any definite benefit under the Bill.
This did not happen with the 1958 Act. The Highlands and Islands were listed clearly and definitely. They were mentioned by the Minister. He took some pride last night in having applied the 1958 Act to help to relieve unemployment in that area and to develop it industrially. The right hon. Gentleman did not have much right to take pride. Now he takes no pride at all in the new Bill; and there is no prospect that he

will do anything. The Bill will not apply to those areas, as far as I know. It is extraordinary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) mentioned the importance of sewerage. That is one of the problems facing every Highlands and Island authority at the moment. No part of the country is more backward and in more need of help in that respect than the Highlands and Islands. Are they to be excluded altogether from the prospect of receiving assistance for this vitally important service? It is vitally important from the point of view of water supply, public health, industrial development and every domestic consideration. Are they to be left without any prospect of assistance on this score?
We have no roads into and out of the Hebrides and to the mainland. We have no mainland connection between Orkney and Shetland by road. Thus, the sea transport service is vitally important. The sea routes are the equivalent of what might have been a trunk road had we been geologically a little luckier, or perhaps I should say "unluckier". It depends on one's point of view. If there had been a trunk road to the Western Isles and the Shetlands, it would have been built by the Ministry. It would have been 100 per cent. financed and maintained by the Ministry. However, we depend solely upon air and sea services. The Islands cannot raise a road for industrial and other purposes to the standard of a Government road simply because they are islands and by that definition they cannot have a trunk road.
All these things are already denied to the Highlands and Islands. Now we are told by the silence of the Minister and his refusal to deny the substance of my interpretation, that we are not to have any advantages under one of the few concessions in which he has taken some justifiable pride.
For any industrial development electricity is absolutely essential. Yet the Hydro-Electric Board, partly through the activities of the Government and their directions to economise, etc., says that it is too expensive to supply electricity to islands like the Island of Barra and North Uist. If an enterprising firm


wishes to develop and manufacture some raw material in the Western Isles, in the absence of electricity supply from the Hydro-Electric Board can the Board under the Act ask the Government to subsidise supply, if not by the Hydro-Electric Board directly, at least by the Development Project in the area or the firm wishing to go there? I press the Government for an answer. Can they qualify for assistance for the purpose of providing an electric supply, without which jobs will not be created by industrial development in such an area?
I have confined my remarks to important topics and asked only those questions on which I thnk I am absolutely entitled to a reply. I am not killing time. My hon. Friends and I are not merely filibustering. Every one of my questions has worried local authorities in those heavily de-rated areas. The local authorities cannot out of local rateable resources find the means of self help, unless they have some assistance from the central Government. The assistance these areas have so far received towards industrialisation can be measured by the fact that the Islands of Barra and North Uist still have no industrial development, electrification or adequate water supplies. That is the measure of their neglect to date. What is the prospect of them receiving any help under the Bill to make up for the decades of neglect?
The Minister has given no assurance that the Highlands and Islands and certain needy areas in Wales and England will be assisted. The concession cannot mean anything whatsoever to any area which so far has received no assurance from the Minister that it will be included in the list to be drawn up, which we hope will happen as soon as the Bill becomes an Act. Last night we went through all the antics of the financial test. We heard much about the test of prospective financial success, which was the one real test which the Minister applied to any applicant firm coming forward for assistance to go to such an area. It must prove above all else that there was a prospect of it being ultimately a financial and commercial success. That prerequisite—"commercial success"—is not in the Bill, but that is what the Economic Secretary said in interpreting the Bill.
Once again, I remind the President of the Board of Trade of his own words. Is it still as he said on Second Reading.
our main purpose … to mitigate, for social and human reasons, some of the industrial consequences …"—[OFFICIAL REPCRT, 9th November, 1459; Vol. 612, c. 33.]
of uncontrolled industrial over-concentration? If the Government have abandoned that policy and intention and we are thrown back purely upon the commercial and cash test, heaven help areas like the Highlands and Islands and many parts of rural England, because they will get nothing out of it.
I reapt that I would like some answer from the President of the Board of Trade. He has simply sat back, muttering to some one on his left and some one on his right. A short while ago he actually consulted some one, his P.P.S., behind him—"D'ye ken, John Peel"? Even John Peel didn't ken, however; and so far we have heard nothing further. I thought that, perhaps Ministers were consulting with the experts and even with the Scottish Office on some long shot hope that something might come from them. But we have had no answer to all the speeches and appeals made from both sides about the Highlands and Islands and, indeed, about many parts of England and Wales. May we have some answer from the Minister now? He cannot sit back like a dummy and refuse to answer.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Though not wishing to detain the Committee very long at this stage, I wish to make a short contribution with a view to facilitating business. First, I associate myself with the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Responsibility for the delay is not all on this side. Something has gone wrong with the link of responsibility between the Board of Trade and other Government Departments. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of State have been away so that there has been no authoritative person to accept responsibility. As my right hon. Friend said, in previous experiences of this kind when a Minister has been prepared to consider Amendments he has had new words ready and said that if the Amendment is withdrawn he would insert certain words. That has had a very good effect and we have proceeded


accordingly. On this occasion it may be that he has dual responsibility. If dual responsibility between different Government Departments is the reason for it, the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible and we absolve him from any blame.
I very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's approach to this problem, and I will give him a concrete example to show the correctness of what he said. In Stoke-on-Trent we have large marl holes, about four times the size of this Chamber. Because of mining subsidence the sewerage system completely collapsed and two large industrial estates were affected, and we had great difficulty in getting Government Departments to accept responsibility for financing new sewerage. Industrial areas like ours suffer from that kind of thing, and the fact that the Minister has gone a long way to meet us by saying that he will insert words at a later stage will, I am sure, give great satisfaction. I intervened only to give him that concrete example.

Mr. Maudling: Several important points have emerged from this debate. I can tell the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that bridges would clearly fall within "facilities for transport," and the same thing would clearly apply—this is in the definition—to the sea transport referred to by the hon. Member for. the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan).
I gather that the Committee generally agrees that sewerage should be included specifically. The point about water is interesting. I would have thought that it was covered by "other services," but it might well be better to specify it in terms. I will consider that, and will also consider the points raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). All these seem now to be things that I should study before putting down my Amendment on Report. If I may say so, that seems a very good reason for putting it down at the Report stage, after listening to the advice of the Committee, rather than before.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that the list of services in this Amendment is not exhaustive. The

words are meant to be tacked on to subsection (2), which covers the general field. The Amendment starts by saying:
including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the provision of facilities …
for services that are then identified. As I have said, we took those words from the 1945 Act.
Water supplies were not particularly mentioned in that Act, but the biggest scheme in Scotland of which I have knowledge, and the biggest scheme to be assisted under Section 3 of the 1945 Act, was the Daer water scheme in the County of Lanark. That scheme was carried through by the county council jointly with a number of the large burghs in the county. We got a 474½ per cent. grant, and as the total cost was between £5 million and £6 million it was a really big water supply scheme. We did that without water supply schemes having been specifically written into that Section of the 1945 Act.
8.15 p.m.
As I say, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for undertaking to name some of the services, as has been suggested in this discussion. I took his point about excluding housing from the provision. He will probably want to look at that again. However, an interesting point was made from his own side of the Committee about housing and the fact that it is not only local authorities that can be assisted.
I have been trying to recollect what has happened in parts of the country that I know quite well that have been within the Development Area and which have, over the years, had an opportunity of getting assistance under the Section. I cannot remember assistance for housing being sought or granted under the 1945 Act, but. of course, that does not mean that it did not happen, and it certainly does not mean that it did not happen—

Mr. Maudling: It has not happened.

Mr. Fraser: The President of the Board of Trade tells me that it has not happened. I have no doubt, nonetheless, that he will take account of all that has been said in the discussion.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that when it


comes to drafting an alternative Amendment we will be met on the subject of water. I speak mainly for North-West Wales and Caernarvonshire, where practically our one hope of new industry coming to the aid of the declining slate industry is some form of water-using industry.
We have an abundance of water in Snowdonia. Unfortunately, local authority resources are very much less than the natural resources of the area governed by the local authorities. Consequently, before we can harness that water to serve new industry we shall certainly need much financial help, either directly to the local government authorities or to an industry that elects to go there. I therefore want to reinforce what has been said on that point, and I wholeheartedly welcome what the President of the Board of Trade has said about it.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dempsey: In deleting housing from the provision, I want the President of the Board of Trade to make absolutely certain that we shall have the cooperation of the Secretary of State for Scotland in providing housing. I am sorry to intervene to make that point, but there have been times in the past when we have not had the co-operation that we should have had in providing housing as a service for the purpose of industrial development.
I can recall that when one of the largest industrial concerns came to Lanark we had a great deal of trouble in getting the approval of the Secretary of State for the provision of the requisite number of houses. I agree that this Clause should stand part of the Bill, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to emphasise to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this is his responsibility, and I want to be sure that when we get to the stage when housing becomes an important element we can be assured of the co-operation of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I should like to associate myself with all other hon. Members in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the spirit of the Amendment. It is a matter that I presumed to mention on Second

Reading, and I am delighted to know that the President of the Board of Trade is to strengthen this Clause so that it clearly is on all fours with Section 3 of the 1945 Act.
It is the absence in many areas of these basic services that is the greatest deterrent to firms going where there is high unemployment. In my division—and we are a D.A.T.A.C. area—we have in the past few years approached 200 firms to start up there, but we have not been able to persuade more than one of them to come. Therefore, we attach far greater importance to improving the basic services than to financial inducements to individual firms to go to these areas. I suggest that the improvement of railway facilities, roads, electricity, water and sewerage is far more important to the whole area than are inducements applied to individual firms.
Here I would refer to what was said by the then President of the Board of Trade, Dr. Dalton. Referring to Section 3 (2) of the 1945 Act, as it became, he said:
This is a very necessary Clause, because before the war one of the handicaps from which many of those areas suffered in regard to industrial development was that in these basic services they often fell below the national standards of the country as a whole. The purpose of this Clause is to remove that handicap, and to bring their basic services up to the national level, and to do that without imposing additional charges upon the local rates." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 840.]
This is possibly not of general application, but in many areas the provision of basic services is far more important than financial inducements being offered to individual firms.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(THE INDUSTRIAL ESTATES MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.)

Mr. Charles Mapp: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "three" and to insert "five".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arbuthnot): I think it would be convenient to the Committee if with this Amendment we were to discuss also the Amendments in page 5, line 31, at end insert "North-Eastern".


In line 32, after "England", insert:
the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for North-Western England, the Industrial Management Corporation for England (General)
The two Amendments in line 34, after "respects", insert "North-Eastern", and after "England", insert:
North-Western England, such part of England as is not comprised in North-Eastern England or North-Western England".
In line 38, at end insert:
and the boundaries of North-Eastern England and of North-Western England shall be specified by an order of the Board, which shall be laid before Parliament",
and in line 43, at end insert:
(3) The principal office of each Management Corporation shall be situated within the area in respect of which that Management Corporation is to exercise its functions.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of procedure, Mr. Arbuthnot. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) will be speaking to these Amendments, but I wondered whether you would consider that we could take at the same time the Amendments to Clause 9, page 6, all in line 34, and all seeking to insert a new subsection as follows:
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Cumberland Development Council in matters affecting Cumberland.
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Staffordshire County Council and the Newcastle-under Lyme borough and rural district councils, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the management corporation to consult with these councils.
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Trafford Park Estates, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Estates Limited.
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Stoke City Industrial Sites Committee, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Sites Committee.
These Amendments are similar, and I feel that if we do not discuss them at the same time there will be some overlapping in the discussion. I feel that we could have a broad discussion within reason, provided that our right to divide later on is safeguarded, though I do not suppose that necessity will arise pro-

vided the Minister is as generous as he was on the last Clause. I feel that this procedure would facilitate business and save a great deal of time.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot agree to the hon. Member's request to go that distance.

Mr. Mapp: In moving the Amendment I feel that I should perhaps make plain that I am not particularly wedded to the word "five" or even to a greater number. It may be that some hon. Members have in mind other figures. and their comments will be helpful.
If we consider the various Ministry of Labour areas, we find that in terms of population there are roughly 5½ million in London and south-eastern England; in eastern and southern England, 2 million; south-western England, 1 million; the Midlands area, 2 million; north -Midlands, 1½ million; East and West Ridings, 1¾ million; northwestern area, 3 million; and the northern area, 1¼ million. This amounts to nearly 19 million insured or employed people who will be covered by this one management corporation, and in addition we shall be legislating for a little over 2 million in Scotland and something like 1 million in Wales.
When we consider the Development Areas we find that the great problem facing us will lie in the North of England. The purpose of the Amendments is to separate or break down the entity of England and to divide it into at least three divisions. The figures generally support that proposal, and I feel that there would be a measure of injustice if the great area of England were left under one management corporation.
I have heard from time to time, when there has been some form of injustice, people casually saying "That is another injustice for Scotland." However, in our endeavour to allay any such feelings with regard to Scotland or Wales we must not overlook the claims of England. The number of employed people in the North-Western area are considerably in excess of those in Scotland and three times in excess of those in Wales.

Mr. G. Roberts: If my hon. Friend looks at the figures again, he will see


that proportionately they are less misleading than would appear from his remarks. He will find that we are not so well off in Wales.

Mr. Mapp: I was dealing with the number of employed people, and the figures are largely as I indicated. In terms of unemployment, it is clear that Scotland and Wales are at the head of the table. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the areas mainly in the north of England, on the northwest and north-east sides, and to a lesser degree in Yorkshire, should have adequate attention. We feel that these areas cannot properly be covered by administration or direction from one centre, wherever it may be, in England. We feel strongly that there should be at least three management corporations. I am prepared to agree that there should not be one management corporation for each of the divisional areas under the Ministry of Labour. That would be asking too much, but I feel that a case could be made out for at least three in England.
I hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming on this Amendment as he was a few moments ago. I would stress that in the main the problem is in the northern part of England, and it is likely to continue. I am not married to the geography in the later Amendments. They are designed largely to stimulate thought on the part of the Minister. If he can see his way to meet the demand by the provinces that they should have some flexibility and regional outlook in this matter he will be meeting the spirit of the Bill as well as the letter.
If I had time I could quote the feelings of the people on the Merseyside. However, I will content myself by paraphrasing the feelings of the Merseyside Development Association which is asking that in this Bill there should be some elasticity of approach, not necessarily centred in London. One is not anti-Whitehall except insofar as these are local and regional matters, and the feeling and knowledge of the districts concerned would be better reflected if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the principle of these Amendments.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I am very pleased to support the Amendment moved so ably by my hon.

Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). It seems to me that one corporation for the whole of England is not only much too big but it is also much too remote. I am asking that it should be based for administrative purposes on London. To have five people looking after the whole of the distribution of industry policy for England seems to me ludicrous when we bear in mind the number of bodies which up to now have been dealing with it. One of the great strengths of the present arrangements has been the local influence, local example, local initiative and pride which have moved the local development boards in their different areas in going out of their way to attract industry to the present Development Areas.
I make a plea for the retention, under the Bill of North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. I make it quite unashamedly, because I believe that the record of this company justifies its claim to continue in the future. I have no idea what kind of personnel the Minister has in mind to staff his new administration, but I hazard a guess that he will go to North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. for the chairman. I should not be at all surprised if that were so. We may, therefore, have a friend at court in the new body, but, even so, I would much rather that the existing company remained.
The reason is very simple. Until, perhaps, the recession of the last year or so, North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. has been one of the most successful public enterprises that there could be. It covers the whole geographical county of Durham, the county boroughs of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Tynemouth, a large area of Northumberland, and a considerable part of the North Riding.
8.30 p.m.
The important fact is that this company has been the pioneer. It came into existence twenty-three years ago. It has been a model for the development of all other trading estates companies in the country. It has done a tremendous amount of valuable work, particularly in the early years, to attract new industries and produce diversification in the North-East. It has by its example and effort been able to provide excellent facilities for factories. It conducted a


first-class advertising campaign, with tremendous publicity. All along, it has been an acknowledged success.
There are now about 53,000 people employed in the factories under the control of North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. Naturally, we should have liked to see that figure very much increased. It was not the figure the company originally set out to attain. The original target was something like 100,000, an extremely optimistic figure at the time, but, throughout the years of its existence since the war the company has maintained its level of employment at well above the 50,000 mark. In the ancillary industries which have accompanied the development which the company has encouraged, it has provided additional work for, perhaps, 100,000 people in the North-East, many of them women who have come into industry for the first time.
North-Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. now controls over 300 factories on its estates and individual sites. Its great virtue is that it has not been a rent-collecting device. It has not been an estate or factory management device. On the contrary, it has deliberately gone out of its way to encourage new industries to settle in the North-East, both large firms and small, covering the whole range of manufacturing activity, electrical goods, clothing, and so forth.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not know whether I am right, but I think that there is some confusion here. The existing development companies, as I understand it, will still continue, while the corporation provided for under the Bill will be entirely distinct from the local corporations. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I put this point because I want some clarification.

Mr. Chetwynd: It is not so.

Mr. Loughlin: As I read it, there are certain functions laid upon the corporations by Clause 9. Sir William, may I continue with this point?

Mr. Chetwynd: If it is an interruption, I should like to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is not right. If he looks at the Second Schedule, he will see that the individual industrial estates com-

panies, including North Eastern Trading Estates Limited, the one with which I am particularly concerned, are to be abolished. The actual physical set-up, as it were, may remain at a lower administrative level, but the boards or companies themselves will be abolished, and the five industrial estates companies are to be centralised under one body consisting of a chairman and four members. I hope that that makes the matter quite clear.
The fact that almost every type of product is included in the list of products from the 300 factories to which I have referred shows clearly the success of the development area policy pursued energetically by the Labour Government and not quite so energetically by Conservative Government. It has brought diversification of industry into the North-East. As I say, developments in the North-East have proved to be a great success. The trading estate conception now occupies a prominent and, I hope, a permanent place in the industrial and economic life of the North-East and of the rest of the country.
North Eastern Trading Estates Limited is no small concern. It administers 14 separate trading estates. Anyone who has seen a modern trading estate knows what kind of business that is, with centralised services and so forth. It has eight group sites and 14 individual sites. The 300 tenants occupy a total factory space of over 12 million sq. ft. It is responsible for capital assets totalling over £17 million. Altogether, it operates in an area of more than 1,260
square miles. So we are not dealing with a small organisation but with a major concern.
In my view it would be wrong to sweep away this body and to centralise control in five people who will be no more than rent collectors, who will merely see that buildings are painted and the business is kept ticking over, who will not go out of their way to attract new firms into the area. The plea I make for the retention of this trading estate is that in the past it has been not just a commercial landlord but has been concerned to help the tenants to expand and make progress in their enterprises and it has shown personal interest in the wellbeing of the firms.


There has been a period of great enterprise which, however, has been regrettably curtailed in past years.
More important still is that North Eastern Trading Estates Ltd. has identified itself with the public life of the north-east. It has given a corporate character to its endeavours, which I am sure applies to all the other trading estate companies. It has linked up with the North-Eastern Development Industrial Association in publicity. It has fostered a corporate spirit in an economic unit spread over three counties, and it would be a great tragedy if all this were now to be lost and a mere rent collecting agency put in its place.
On its board there have been representatives of all forms of civic life—industrialists, trade unionists, people who have given voluntary service, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for some time. These people have done a good job in inducing industry to come to the northeast, and I am sure that all the firms who have come there have had no cause to regret their decision.
The demise of this trading estate at this time is to be greatly deplored, because the problem we are now facing is just as acute today for most of the area concerned as when it came into being. The basic industries on which the north-east depend—coal and shipbuilding—are in a serious economic plight, so we cannot say that the work of the trading estate is finished, successful though it has been. It has a great future if it can be left in being, so I hope the Minister will see fit to go back on his idea of one all-embracing company to deal with the entire country and will give us back again our local interest. After all, the Tory Party prides itself on the fact that the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best. I should have thought that the gentlemen of Tyneside, Wearside and Tees-side know better how to go about these things than a body sitting in London.
What about the future of the factories and, above all, of the employees of the company if this proposal should go through? Are their jobs secure? Have they got pension rights if they are put out of employment by this Clause? I suggest that the best thanks the Minister can give to the voluntary efforts of the

many public-spirited people who have served the Board in the past few years, and who had such signal success in the early days, would be to show confidence in them in the future by allowing them to carry on in the difficult days which face us.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to associate myself with all that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I will dispose first of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees because I want to concentrate on the area I know best. It has been my privilege to visit the area on several occasions and I know the public spirit that prevails amongst the men who have been responsible for administering that estate. It has done very good work and has fostered a certain civic pride which should be cultivated rather than discouraged as it will be if our interpretation of the Clause is correct. I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East speak in such a knowledgeable way about the area that he represents, and it is about that area that I want to make a few observations.
In that area, as is too often forgotten. is the oldest and most successful trading estate in this country. It is the best organised, with the best sidings and railways, and it has produced millions of pounds. In the Trafford Park estate there are some of the most efficient concerns in the world. It is bounded on one side by the Manchester Ship Canal and on the other by the Bridgwater Canal. The passenger service and the sidings are most efficient. We should like to know how they will be affected, because if some areas are to have the benefit of national finance this area is also entitled to it.
I hoped that I might have been able to make my contribution to facilitating business on an earlier Amendment, but we were prevented and I accept that decision. I would have thought that one would have been able to deal with this as one issue instead of being forced into making two speeches. That, however, is not my responsibility. I propose to dwell upon this matter for the time being.
The area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East has been


speaking is within a 50-mile radius of Manchester and 11 million people live there. In that area 68,000 people are unemployed, which is twice as many as in the whole of Wales.
We want Wales to continue to have its development encouraged. We want, however, to know where we come in. According to the official figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, there were in the area, about which my hon. Friend has spoken so well, 68,626 unemployed compared with 86,617 in Scotland and 32,297 in Wales.
When we come to the Development Areas, we find a tragic situation is hidden behind the teeming millions in Lancashire. On Merseyside—and I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) will listen to this because his area is considerably affected—4 per cent. are unemployed, which is higher than in any other Development Area with the exception of Scotland with 4·7 unemployed.
In order to avoid controversy I will give the latest figures of unemployed in the Development Areas so that we may approach this problem in a correct perspective. According to the official figures the rate of unemployed in the North-East is 3·2 per cent.

Mr. Chetwynd: It is 3·8 per cent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The figures I am giving are the official figures in the last Ministry of Labour Gazette for November. If any hon. Member wants to check up he can run into the Library while I am speaking and do so.

Mr. Ede: We are listening to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Chetwynd: I was quoting the November figures which show an increase.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to differ from my hon. Friend because we have too much in common, but there is a slight difference. He is quoting the very latest figures and I am quoting from the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November.

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be helpful if the hon. Gentleman will address the Chair as well as his hon. Friends.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We all need to be corrected at times, Sir William. If my wife were here she would add that nobody needs it more than I do.
I am quoting the latest unemployment figures for the Development Areas so that those who subsequently contribute to the debate can do so against this background. The figures are: North-Eastern 3·2 per cent., West Cumberland 3·8 per cent., Scottish 4·7 per cent., South Wales and Monmouthshire 3·2 per cent., Wrexham 3·7 per cent., South Lancashire 2·8 per cent., North-East Lancashire 1·5 per cent. and Merseyside 4 per cent.
I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I quote these figures not with a view to raising differences between us but so that we can approach the problem in the correct perspective. We all want to bring about the best results for all the areas. No matter what the percentage happens to be, anyone which is unemployed through no fault of his own deserves a sympathetic approach from us all. All that we are asking is that there should be equality of treatment and national uniformity in administration. If it is right in accordance with the Bill when it becomes an Act to give the very best treatment to one area, then we ask that the very best treatment should also be given to our own areas.

Mr. Maudling: I think I can help the Committee, because there seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding about this matter.
There are two points that I wish to make. First, it seems to me to be assumed that the English headquarters will be in London. I think that is most unlikely. It is almost certain that the headquarters will be somewhere in the North of England. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is right. Secondly, the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) talked about five men looking at the policy for the whole of England. This is not a matter of policy. It is a matter of administration. In a moment or two I will make that clearer.
Much as I should like to help in this respect, I feel that it would be running contrary to most of the things that we are doing by means of the Bill if we were to accept the Amendment. I am much fortified by what was said by the hon.


Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who was making a point which I in my turn might wish to make. We must look at this matter as a national problem and not a regional problem. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who talked about the desirability of a regional outlook.
One of our purposes in the Bill is to get away from the concept of certain areas being given special treatment and to ensure that the same benefits should be available to all areas which qualify by reason of their unemployment conditions. It is consistent with that that we should seek, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, national uniformity in administration. However, I admit that we are not being wholly logical, because we have separate arrangements for Scotland and Wales, but I should have thought that this was—

Hon. Members: It is still a national matter.

Mr. Maudling: Exactly. Illogicality is accepted as a matter of policy on some occasions.
In the case of England, we feel that the new concept of the Bill can be served only by having a single corporation. We are thinking not in terms of two or three special areas but of a number of areas, some possibly co-terminous with existing Development Areas and some smaller, areas which will be changing from time to time. We think there is a considerable case for uniformity in administration. That is what we are seeking through the provisions in the Bill.
The misunderstanding has arisen because people have assumed that the functions of these corporations will be not only management, but "missionary" work, the work of promoting the areas where the factories are established. That is not our view. It is our view that they should concentrate on management. It is important to draw distinctions and to prevent too much overlapping.
I was struck in Scotland last week by the view of an American who is running a firm in Lanarkshire, which is doing very well, and who said that it was a mistake for too many people to try to put forward the claims of an area. He said that we should not have confusion

and overlapping, and I think that that is important.
It is our view that there are three functions to be performed. First, there is the policy of trying to get firms into particular areas—by using I.D.C.s on the one hand and by employing all the inducements contained in the earlier Clauses on the other. That must remain a matter for the Board of Trade. Quite clearly, that is our responsibility and our duty.
Secondly, there is the function of general promotion of the virtues of a particular district. I should have thought that that was exactly the function of the development councils and development associations, such as the Scottish Council, the Welsh Council, the Cumberland Council and the North-Eastern Council. We hope that those organisations will continue to do their work.
However, there is a third and we think quite separate function, managing Board of Trade properties and factories in these areas.
There is another point, possibly a small distinction in the minds of some people in Scotland, that the men who are to run these corporations should be able to understand the needs of industrialists and not be merely technical men. I accept that. We will aim to get on the boards of the corporations people who will be able to talk to industrialists so that when we get industrialists and induce them to consider certain areas, the people running the factories in that area will be able to talk to these industrialists in terms they understand. That system has worked very well in Scotland and it will continue to work well because we will invite people of that capacity to serve on the corporations.
While I appreciate that there is a great deal in the arguments in support of the Amendment, I think that it would be a mistake to accept it.

Mr. Mapp: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the members of the management corporations will be expected to have certain commercial aptitudes. Immediately before that, he said that the local agencies ought to continue, to undertake the public relations work. Will he be good enough to make clear who will be responsible for public relations development? Will it be done


locally? If so, through which agencies will it be done? Will they be voluntary agencies, or will it be done through the management corporations, the personnel of which we shall be discussing shortly?

Mr. Maudling: I repeat what seem to be the three separate functions. There is the general selling of a district, which is a job for bodies such as the Scottish Council, which has done it extremely well. Such a body will be responsible for the public promotion of a district to industrialists not only in this country, but in America and in other parts of the world. Secondly, there is the job of the Board of Trade, to try to get industrialists to consider factories or sites in areas where there are Board of Trade powers. Thirdly it will be the job of the management corporations to explain to the industrialist when he comes to the area what sort of factory he will get. The corporation will have to be generally able to understand the needs of the industrialists going to the areas.
Those are the three separate functions and it is important that we should try to get away from overlapping. I am convinced from what I have seen and heard that overlapping is a mistake. There are three separate functions, and I think that I have described everything that needs to be done and will continue to be done. At the same time, we shall get a national uniformity in administration, which I think is desirable.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mapp: I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, to leave out "four" and to insert "six".

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 43, at end, insert:
local government or the organisation of workers".

Mr. Mapp: Having heard the Minister a moment ago, any suggestion that the management of these corporations would have some forward progressive view seems to me to be unfounded, because I have little confidence in the type or qualities of the people suggested as members of the corporation. I do not wish to denigrate the skill, knowledge or integrity of accountants. They are people who have a rightful place in

management, but if the problem that we are facing is one of looking at the harsh realities of the industrial world, of trying to get contacts in 1960, and trying to judge the tempo of business and the developments of the future, the accountancy world is one that we should not consult. The accountancy world is one that we should bring in after the major policy decisions have been made.
The Amendment seeks to bring into these management corporations an expression of crvic and industrial life. The fresh air that will be brought into the management corporations by the kind of people that I have in mind, and which the House will understand, will be of benefit to them. The Board of Trade itself would benefit by the initiative and virility of thought that might emanate from the inception of such fresh blood into the management corporations.
The precedent that I have in mind is D.A.T.A.C. I gather that the Committee is composed of an accountant who is the chairman. I do not disagree with that. There are three representatives from industry, a representative about whom I am rather uncertain, but he is probably a man with local government experience, and at least two men nominated by the Trades Union Congress.
I am not complaining about the weighting of that Committee. What I am suggesting is that in that D.A.T.A.C. arrangement there is a healthy arrangement and not half a dozen people looking at the problem from one purely functional point of view, namely, accountancy.
I realise that these management corporations will to a large extent deal with the proper deployment and management of these estates, but they will not do that exclusively. Because of that I am asking for the inception of fresh blood into these management corporations. That can be done by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I desire to say a word or two in support of the Amendment. The only purpose of amending the figure from "four" to "six" is to provide room without cutting down the representation foreshadowed in the Bill; four representatives of local authorities, on the one hand, and, on the other, representatives of organised workers.


9.0 p.m.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), D.A.T.A.C. is a suitable analogy to illustrate the point he made, because it is clear that the D.A.T.A.C. Committee had policy functions to perform which are outside the functions of these management committees. It decided, for instance. whether aid should be granted at all, and, if so, how much. Any assistance received from the Government was on its recommendation. The Minister has now made it quite clear, although it was doubtful before, that this is not to be one of the functions of management corporations. Although 1 make that point, I would go on to say that it is perhaps for that reason that the Amendment might commend itself to the Minister. As at present drawn, the Bill provides that:
Each of the Corporations … shall consist of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Board, and the members shall include persons appearing to the Board to have adequate experience in accountancy, building or estate management.
One can infer from that subsection that accountancy, building and estate management will cover the bulk of the scope of the functions to be performed by management corporations.
In his answer on the previous Amendment. the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to avoid overlapping, and if one is to avoid that, one must have some continuous liaison. The very purpose of avoiding overlapping in the various functions performed by the various bodies would be assisted by having, on the corporations, people who are used to the problems of local government and also of labour and personnel.
Nothing could possibly be lost by it. I agree that it would be a mistake to extend the membership of the corporations so as to make them unwieldy debating assemblies instead of small executive and administrative bodies, but I suggest that no danger will be run by merely increasing the number from four to six. A body of six is still not unwieldy. It is quite as easy to arrive at quick, practical and workmanlike decisions with six members as with four, and it would allow for constant and continuous contact with the local authorities concerned by people accustomed to the

kind of problems with which local authorities will be concerned.
It seems to some of us that in the whole spirit of the Bill there has been rather too much playing down of local authorities' connection with, and interest in, these matters. Local authorities are vitally interested in the matter, and in many cases they know very much more about it than anybody else concerned with it, including the Board of Trade. For those reasons, I commend the Amendment to the Minister and hope that he will be able to accept it.

Mr. Maudling: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments put forward by the hon. Members opposite, and I can say that my mind is not made up on the question. I wanted to hear the arguments put forward. Two separate points are involved. The first concerns the number and the second the composition of the corporations. I would like to keep the number at five—a chairman and four members. I think that it is a question of the smaller the better for the job of management, but keeping it at that figure does not preclude having a representative of local government or the organisation of workers.
Turning to the second point, I should have thought that a trade unionist would probably have more to contribute to the sort of work the corporations would do than would a representative of local government, and certainly in the case of England it would be difficult to obtain a representative of local government over such a wide area. I agree that that consideration would not necessarily apply to Scotland or Wales.
I should like to think over what has been said. I do not necessarily disagree with any of it, although I am doubtful about the local government representative. I do not want to appear to be writing down local authorities, or to be derogatory of them, but it would be a pity to bring people with a local authority point of view into a sphere where it is not appropriate. It would only waste their time and, possibly, lead to a corporation with more people than are needed.
I should like to think it over if the Committee will give me leave to do so. I should like to consider once again the size and composition without, I must make clear, committing myself, because


my mind is not yet made up on this question. But I will consider the matter between now and Report stage and see whether I can go some way to meet the arguments which have been put forward.

Mr. Ross: I hope that when he thinks about this matter the right hon. Gentleman will do so not only in the light of the suggestions already made regarding organisation, labour and the question of the local authorities, but will also bear in mind that he has already suggested he was impressed by what was said to him when he was in Glasgow last weekend.
There has been considerable concern in Glasgow about the complete change in the make-up of these corporations. The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce "went to town" on this matter, and it reached the ear of the Minister. He said that he was impressed and felt that he could get someone connected with business who would be able to speak to business men. If he does that and sticks to the language of the Bill, and has not a particular member connected with accountancy, building and estate management, but members, he will leave himself little room if he ties himself to the idea of a chairman and four members, or even a chairman and five members. If he wishes to do the right thing by the Amendment, which obviously impressed him, and by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, whose representations equally impressed him, he had better change his mind about the figure of five and think of accepting the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Mapp: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We were disappointed with the answer of the Minister to several of the proposed Amendments to this Clause. I am not commenting on the last Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to look at that matter again. We hope that he will do so in the light of the arguments addressed to him by my hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman agreed that it was illogical to have only one corporation to look after England as a whole. I think it right that there should be one corporation for Wales and one for Scotland. They will do a job of vital importance having regard to the high figure of unemployment in the two countries. Geographically they are smaller areas. I think it a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to accede to the spirit of the Amendments moved by my hon. Friends. We are justified in saying that here we have a Government who wish to centralise things to an unnecessary degree. The concept of the gentlemen in Whitehall knowing best stands out a mile when one considers the approach of the Government to this Clause.
We on this side of the Committee like to see authority diversified and men and women regarding these things from a local point of view. In many of the areas which may be designated as Development Areas a number of the people who will lose their jobs represent a certain type of labour which uses certain processes in its work. I should have thought that had we some authority in the locality which understood the nature of the labour to be displaced it would know far better than a centralised authority what type of work would be appropriate, so that the people displaced would not need the same amount of industrial training in order to fit them for new jobs. Surely that kind of thing could be done more effectively and efficiently by people with a knowledge of the locality.
It is very illogical, as the Minister admitted, to say that merely because England happens to be a unit on a map, irrespective of its size, as compared with Wales and Scotland, it must have only one authority looking after it. The conditions in so many areas differ enormously. In one area problems may arise because of the closure of pits, as in Durham and in other parts of England, and, indeed, in Lancashire, whereas in other parts, and even in Lancashire itself, problems may arise because of redundancy amongst textile workers.
I should have thought that it was a vital thing for anyone who is to try to draw new industries into these areas that he should have a fairly expert knowledge


of the types of labour that will be available and place special emphasis on bringing certain types of industry into that area. That is the kind of thing which my hon. Friends have very much in mind in asking the Minister to review the question of having merely one authority looking after England as a whole.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the authority itself would not necessarily be based on London. I think it would be very appropriate if it were based in the North, but, nevertheless, despite what he said, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look again at this matter. I hope he will agree that there is such a wide number of trades and industries in the North of England, requiring so many different types of skill and different types of operatives that he will not put any sort of industry into a given area because it happens to be available without consideration of the amount of public money which will be necessary in many instances to retrain the people concerned. He would defeat the object of some parts of the Bill by doing that.
One is very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is not seized of the importance of this point. I think my hon. Friends made a first-class case for reconsideration of this matter, and I

hope that even now the Minister will say that his mind is not closed on the subject. I do not want to cover the whole argument again. Merely to say that because England is a unit it is not meet for him to look at its size, as in the case of Scotland and Wales, and merely because it comes within the confines of one country, irrespective of its size, it must have only one authority seems to me to be illogical.

The diversity of industries which are in trouble in the North is very wide, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I hope he will look at the matter again and that he will agree to give consideration between now and Report stage to the point made by my hon. Friends. One does not want to prolong the discussion unnecessarily, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the principles that we are here arguing bite very deeply indeed so far as our opposition to various parts of the Bill is concerned. For my part, I hope he will go some way to meet us on this point, but if he will not I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to register their disapproval of his attitude in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 155.

Division No.17.]
AYES
[9.14p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Allason, James
Cordle, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Critchley, Julian
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Balniel, Lord
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvey Anderson, Miss


Barlow, Sir John
Cunningham, Knox
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Curran, Charles
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Berkeley, Humphry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bidgood, John C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hocking, Philip N.


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Edward
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Duncan, Sir James
Holland-Martin, Christopher


Black, Sir Cyril
Duthie, Sir William
Hollingworth, John


Bossom, Clive
Elliott, R. W.
Holt, Arthur


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fell, Anthony
Hopkins, Alan


Box, Donald
Finlay, Graeme
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Braine, Bernard
Gammans, Lady
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Brewis, John
Gardner, Edward
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bryan, Paul
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bullard, Denys
Gibson-Watt, David
Iremonger, T. L.


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Jackson, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
James, David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Godber, J. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Joseph, Sir Keith


Cleaver, Leonard
Green, Alan
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Cole, Norman
Gurden, Harold
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Collard, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton




Kershaw, Anthony
Noble, Michael
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kitson, Timothy
Nugent, Richard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Storey, S.


Langford-Holt, J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Leavey, J. A.
Page, Graham
Talbot, John E.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Patridge, E.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Longbottom, Charles
Peel, John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Percival, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Loveys, Walter H.
Peyton, John
Thorpe, Jeremy


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Turner, Colin


MacArthur, Ian
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


McLaren, Martin
Pitt, Miss Edith
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Pott, Percivall
van Straubenzee, W. R.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vane, W. M. F.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, J. M. L.
Wade, Donald


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Watts, James


Maginnis, John E.
Rawlinson, Peter
Webster, David


Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Rees, Hugh
Whitelaw, William


Marshall, Douglas
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Roots, William
Wilson. Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wise, Alfred


Mawby, Ray
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Milligan, Rt. Ho n. W. R.
Russell, Ronald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Mills, Stratton
Scott-Hopkins, James
Woodhouse, C. M.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Seymour, Leslie
Woodnutt, Mark


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Woollam, John


Morgan, William
Shepherd, William
Worsley, Marcus


Morrison, John
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Nabarro, Gerald
Smithers, Peter



Neave, Airey
Spearman, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Mr. Brooman-White




NOES


Ainsley, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, A. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Galpern, Myer
Mapp, Charles


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, Stan
Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.


Bence, Cyril (Dunhartonshire, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce


Benson, Sir George
Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, Charles
Morris, John


Blyton, William
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Boyden, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Padley, W. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Carmichael, James
Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Chetwynd, George
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Deer, George
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Diamond, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Donnelly, Desmond
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, Edward


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Evans, Albert
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Finch, Harold
McInnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Fitch, Alan
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Foot, Dingle
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)







Stonehouse, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Stones, William
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Warbey, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor
Winterbottom, R. E.


Swingler, Stephen
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, Robert


Sylvester, George
Wheeldon, W. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Symonds, Joseph
Whitlock, William
Zilliacus, K.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick



Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.

Clause 9.—(FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.)

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, at the end to insert:
Provided that in letting or offering to let premises under this subsection a Management Corporation shall take into account any remoteness or inaccessibility of the place in which such premises are situated and shall so adjust the rent asked as to offset the disadvantages of such remoteness or inaccessibility.
This is an eminently reasonable Amendment which I think the Minister will find it very difficult to resist. Some localities, because of their distance from centres of population, are at a disadvantage when they seek to persuade industrialists to settle in their areas. Some equalising factor is therefore needed to place them on the same level of opportunity as localities not so distant from centres of population.
I examined the Bill very carefully to see what might be done to provide these localities with an additional inducement over and above the normal inducements given to all areas with a high level of unemployment. The most practical and effective way of assisting remote areas is by differential factory rents. The chief factor that must be taken into account here is transport costs. Many industries are reluctant to go to remote areas because of the additional expenditure of transporting raw material to the factory and the finished product to the port or centre of distribution. The bulkier the product, the more prohibitive the cost must be. This factor has probably been the greatest single obstacle to the industrial development of peripheral areas in Wales, England and Scotland.
It is fundamental to the success of the Bill that the problem should be tackled and, where possible, overcome. We have had this experience in North Wales and I have had personal experience of it in Anglesey. Industrialists have come to the area and been well satisfied. They

know that there is surplus labour there and that it is intelligent and adaptable. They are generally well satisfied with what the area has to offer. But in the final analysis, after considering the possibility of coming to the area, they have decided to go to Derbyshire, Cheshire or Staffordshire, where transport costs are not such a significant factor.
We need to be in a position to offer this additional inducement. There is nothing new in this, as the Committee knows. For the very reasons I have enumerated, Northern Ireland has been able to offer factory space at a rental of as low as 9d. a square foot, which is a very low rental indeed. In the Development Areas since 1951 factories have had their rents assessed by the district valuer at current market values, but for the first five years the tenant firm receives rebates of rent down to about the 1939 rental.
We need an even more favourable formula than that for areas on the periphery if the Bill is to help us. If the Bill is to operate fairly as between one locality and another, indeed if it is to work at all in remote areas, we must be able to offer factories at a very low rental for an initial period, say five years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the force of the argument and accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. Roberts: We are dealing with a problem within a problem. There is the general unemployment problem throughout the whole country, but there is also this incidence of chronic unemployment in what must be called special areas or areas of special difficulty, especially on the perimeter. We have areas like the Scottish Highlands, parts of Cornwall and North-West Wales.
In those areas, the problem is especially large because of their distance from sources of raw material and markets, and freight charges are very heavy. I believe the question of what might be termed postal rate—flat rates,


irrespective of distance—will have to be studied by the House in the not-too-distant future. Freight charges are bedevilling the position in quite large areas.
9.30 p.m.
We feel that in absence of that reform this Amendment offers a practical way of reducing the disability of distance from which these outlying areas suffer. The concession of preferential rents under the Distribution of Industry Acts has worked very well. In South Wales, in Durham and in other Development Areas, industries were able to set up precisely because of this inducement of favourable rents, abatement of rents, and the gradual increase of rents over a number of years to an economic level. We hope that this will be done under the present Bill, either administratively or by the insertion of that provision.
I hope that nobody will argue that these remote areas will solve their unemployment problem by emigration. It has been said once or twice that as these areas are too far from marketing centres and sources of raw material they must face a natural economic decline. The fact is that emigration is no solution. There has been massive emigration from North-West Wales over the last quarter of a century but, side by side with that, there has been a tremendous increase in unemployment.
The truth is that the same causes of emigration lie at the root of continuing unemployment among those left behind. For instance, we have lost some 25,000 people from the County of Caernarvon in the last twenty years or so, from a population of 120,000 yet, even after such a considerable emigration, our unemployment stands at 9 per cent. Natural causes, natural processes will not stabilise the population or the economy at what might classically be regarded as a normal level.
The chief cause of emigration and unemployment in these areas is the decline of their stable industry; in Lancashire, cotton; in South Wales, Durham and other parts, coal, and in North-West Wales, slate and granite. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) reminded the House on Second Reading that in North-West Wales at the turn of the century we had

slate quarry men while today we have fewer than 3,000—

The Chairman: I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's argument to the Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: I was adducing certain statistics, Sir Gordon, in relation to outlying areas in order to show that special inducement—preferential rents for new factories should by this Bill be extended to those areas—

The Chairman: The Amendment is concerned with rents.

Mr. Roberts: Because we have these outlying areas where special difficulties obtain, we greatly hope that, in addition to the assistance to local authorities provided by the Bill, there will also be positive direction for the provision of this inducement of preferential rent to incoming industrialists.

Mr. Maudling: I think it might be helpful if I were to put before the Committee the reasons why we do not feel that we can accept this Amendment. There is one immediate reason, and that is that this lays a duty on the management corporations to adjust the rents. The rents will not be fixed by the management corporations. That will be the responsibility of the Board of Trade. Therefore, clearly this Amendment, on that ground alone, would not operate.
In any case, there are substantial reasons which I should like to lay before the Committee; I think we have to some extent rehearsed them already in the course of discussions on earlier Clauses when we were debating rent policy. As I have said before, I accept that the more remote an area is, the more difficult and, therefore, in many cases the more we have to spend by way of inducement to attract a given amount of industry. No doubt, a good deal of that is due to transport costs, although my impression is that transport costs can be exaggerated and we ought to go into that aspect with care. But, whether it is exaggerated or not, clearly the more remote the area the higher the potential costs of operation.
But how can one adjust the rents? I do not think we could possibly operate on the basis of this Amendment to offset the disadvantages of such inaccessibility. I do not see how we could


calculate it. It would be difficult to work out how a given remoteness affects the cost of operation.

Mr. G. Roberts: It is not a question of calculation. It is a question of taking it into account.

Mr. Maudling: The point is, how much do we take into account? I am trying to put a sensible argument before the Committee. In practice I do not think this Amendment would be possible to administer. We could not calculate precisely the effects of remoteness in difficult cases, and it would vary very much between one industry and another. The penalty for remoteness is far greater for one industry than for another. It is not therefore a possible criterion for fixing the rents.
We have operated on the only practicable criterion, which is the market value concept. That means that the rents in every area are based on the market rent in that area. That market rent will normally reflect remoteness and inaccessibility and the difficulties of the district concerned. Therefore, as a broad test—I agree not exactly in every case—the more remote an area and the less attractive to industry, the lower the rental which will be assessed as the right rental for a particular factory. We are bringing into effect the element of preference to determine the level of rents in different areas.
Over and above the provision of factory premises, there are also the loans and grants under Clause 4. I should have thought there was a more flexible method of adjusting in individual cases the loans and grants operating under D.A.T.A.C. than is implied in this Amendment. I do not think the suggestion would be workable.
I accept the economic argument here but I think we are dealing with the matter in the best way, and the Amendment would not be operable, first because the criteria are too vague, and secondly for the fundamental reason that it is not the management corporations which fix the rents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I accept the basic theme developed by my hon. Friends, that from our experience since 1945 of the administration of the Act dealing with the development of industries we have found it very difficult to induce

industrialists on the terms offered in the 1944 Act to come to these remote areas.
I am sorry that I was not able to be present last week. I am quoting from memory, but I believe I am right in saying that in the course of the debate on this Bill the Minister referred to a part of the world which I have the privilege to represent in the House. He said that it was very difficult to get industrialists to go beyond Swansea. If I have misquoted him I hope he will correct me. This is West Wales. This is the area which for over a century produced 60 per cent. of the country's tinplate. This is an area in which there is more than 80 per cent. of all the anthracite in this country. It is an area which has contributed richly from its resources, its skill and its talents to the wealth of the nation.
The Minister says that it is difficult to persuade industrialists to go beyond Swansea. It is even more difficult to get them to go to Caernarvonshire where the same problem arises and where there is desperate need. It is the same in Anglesey and the whole of North-West Wales, and, no doubt, the same could be said of Scotland, particularly the Highlands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a problem of unemployment in areas which suffer special difficulties.
As a result of our experience since 1945 of working the provisions of all the Measures we have had since then we have found that they have not been adequate to deal with the matter. My hon. Friends have advanced their proposal about rents. I accept at once that the wording of the Amendment, perhaps for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman himself gave, may not be satisfactory and it could be said that it is out of order because, in fact, it will be the Board of Trade and not the management corporation which will fix the rent. The fact of the matter, however, is that in very many places in this country and in many places all over the world, for example in the Colonies, this method as well as other methods is being used to induce industrialists to establish their undertakings in certain special areas. I understand that this is one of the methods being used in Ireland.
I am not at all sure that the proposal in the Amendment would by itself provide


an adequate attraction. Nevertheless, we have used this method of differential rents for one purpose under the 1945 Act. I referred to it yesterday in a short intervention that I made when speaking about disabled persons. A recommendation was made by a special committee under the chairmanship of our old friend David Grenfell for the establishment of special factories, financed from industrial development moneys under the then existing law, in order to provide employment for persons disabled by pneumoconiosis. It was felt desirable to lay it down that at least 50 per cent. of persons employed in those factories should be men disabled by pneumoconiosis. For that reason, there was to be a differential rent system. Most of the factories provided under Development Area legislation were factories which, any how, were held on differential rents. They did not command the full commercial rents. This, however, was a special rent differential in that particular case, and to some extent, though not entirely, it succeeded.
As we indicated last night, we may need to have factories specially provided for disabled men. Are we to understand that the President of the Board of Trade rules out of consideration a differential rent system in those circumstances as one of the inducements to establish factories and induce industrialists to go to certain places? I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman has not completely dismissed from his mind the use of this differential rent method. I presume that it would be feasible and legal under this Bill, just as it was under the 1945 Act. Perhaps we should have that clear right away.

Mr. Maudling: As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we have the power under this Bill to fix the rents on any basis we like. There is nothing statutory about that. I was merely honestly telling the Committee at once that it is our belief that the right method is to use local market value. We certainly have the power to do otherwise.

Mr. Griffiths: In my view, taking market value really will not do. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, because of remoteness, local market value would be lower in

these places. Let us be quite sure about that. All I can say to him is that our experience leads us to believe, for all manner of reasons, that it is essential to have a differential rent system specially provided for in order to give an extra inducement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about the Amendment. In its present form it may not be quite in order, but it has been called and we can discuss it and vote upon it.
The problem is there. I confess that I cannot quite understand the argument about remoteness. We have in this small island of ours about 50 million people and a tremendous concentration of activities of all kinds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had some figures today showing how great the concentration of industry has become. Really, to talk about remoteness in a little island like ours is not altogether logical. I was glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that transport, in his view, is not a very important element. Is that so? I was very pleased to hear him say that transport costs are not a very big factor in deciding the siting of industry.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I said that element could be exaggerated; I did not say it was not important.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad the President of the Board of Trade says it has been exaggerated. I hope he will talk to his Cabinet colleagues about that. There have been recent decisions about the siting of plant where the only economic factor for choosing one site as against another was the cost of transport. We were told that sixty miles on one side or the other in South Wales made a difference of £1 a ton. We were told by this Government that this was the deciding factor. For all those reasons, I beg the President of the Board of Trade to realise that this is a great problem because, unless this Bill can induce industrialists to establish industries in the remote areas as they are called, the Bill will fail.
It may be that this is not the best method, but I ask the Minister not to dismiss it as one of the possible methods. My own view is that we shall have to think again about transport charges in


perhaps a revolutionary way. I speak as one coming from West Wales, which the Minister himself said last week is an area into which it is difficult to induce industrialists to come. I remember that there was a time when it was not too difficult to induce them to come Indeed, I wish some of them had not come. As an old anthracite miner, I can remember industrialists coming from London, taking over the industry at £4 for each £1 share. I wish they had stayed away. The lesson which the hard-working people in the mining and steelplate industries learned was that when there was profit to be made out of their trade there was no difficulty and the area was not too remote. Now they are to be told that the area is too remote and that industrialists will not come there.
We will not take that answer from any Government. This is a very fine area and a very fine community of very fine people who, for over a century, generation after generation, have given service to this country. We demand from this nation, as we have a right to demand, that the area shall be given whatever special provisions are required to enable it to provide men with work and a livelihood at home in their own communities. That is why we shall press this Amendment. If the President of the Board of Trade thinks this is not the best way to achieve the purpose, it is his responsibility to provide a better way. and we hope he will do that.

Mr. Watkins: I want to impress upon the Minister a fact which I do not think he has realised, and that is the seriousness behind the Amendment. I shall try to bring him up-to-date on this matter and shall not go back to 1945.
In the last six months, the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association has been in negotiation with forty-one industrial firms. I have here an analysis of their replies. I will not go through them all, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that twelve have decided that the area is too remote from the centres of industry. I venture to suggest that five of the Mid-Wales counties are not so remote from the Midlands as all that: certainly they are not so remote as West Wales or North-West Wales. We are adjacent to the Midlands, yet those firms say we are too remote from the centres of industry. Four of the firms say that

they are looking for premises to rent and cannot get them. That is the essential point.
If the words of the Amendment do not satisfy the Minister, we shall be glad to give an assurance that we will not oppose him if he gives himself greater powers in order to provide facilities for industrialists who come to the area, because it is not a fact that it is remote. This district of Mid-Wales is nearer to the Midlands than the remote areas, so I hope the Minister will look at this point. If he cannot do it in this way, he can do something administratively. Let him go to the Regional Controller for Wales, who will give him more up-to-date information on which to make a better reply.

Mr. Bence: I was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be impracticable to fix different rents based upon distances from markets, railheads, or centres. Surely that is what commercial property owners have been doing for a hundred years. One could always rent commercial properties which were great distances from railheads and market centres cheaper than one could rent those near the railheads or markets.
The main point is the word "remoteness." We continually use it in the sense of distance. We had this experience during the war. When shadow factories were built throughout the country. we always considered in industry that the term "remoteness" of a factory from a railhead or port was whether the road facilities were bad to the railhead or port. If the roadways were second or third class, or were tortuous, we looked upon the factory as being remote, although it might have been only 40 miles from the railhead. If it were 80 miles from the railhead on a road that was first-class, that was not regarded as remote but as near. Remoteness was regarded in terms of the facility in getting raw material to the factory or the finished product to the railhead or port. This was always discussed by the regional production boards. I remember discussing this question of remoteness many times with Ministers and officials. It was the question of the speed of transport between different points.
We have in a previous Clause made provision for creating basic services for


any new industries that may be set up. It is to be presumed that some basic services will be done parallel with the building and establishment of the industry, but some will not be done. I can imagine that roadways or awkward bridges will not be done. There is, however, one thing which the Government can do. That is to assess rents at a very low figure until the completion of basic services which will convert a site from being a remote one to being a near one.
I suppose that by the M.1 Birmingham is about three-quarters of an hour or an hour nearer London than it was previously. So Birmingham is less remote from London than it was. We kill the remoteness by means of the efficiency of modern transport between places. In Scotland, if we had helicopters the remoteness of the Western Isles would be forgotten. They would be brought almost to the mainland. This problem in Scotland is tremendous. Anyone who knows the parts of Scotland where it is suggested that industry might be directed knows that among the great problems are the huge distances, the torturous nature of the roads, and the difficulty and slowness of transport. Surely these factors could be offset by fixing low rents until these services were improved and this sort of remoteness destroyed.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that road transport cost could very often be exaggerated. There is, in fact—many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee have experience of these road transpost costs—an important cost factor. If one cannot rely upon a regular daily transport service, one must add the cost of carrying stocks. If one has only a weekly service from a remote area, one must carry stocks for seven days. If one is manufacturing a high-cost product, it represents a very high cost indeed. It is a transport cost. If one is carrying such stock, one may have to carry higher costs of raw materials and higher costs for the finished product.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting away from the Amendment, which deals only with rent.

Mr. Bence: I am trying to prove that a reduction in rent is a method by which one can offset many of the costs incurred

when industries are placed in areas where services between them and their railheads, ports or markets are expensive. I am demonstrating the high costs which arise in order to justify the Amendment in that the rent factor can be used to compensate for them. Any production engineer engaged in costing knows well that the holding of stocks through lack of transport represents a high cost factor. It is part of the transport cost, and a low rent can offset it. This was done during the war with shadow factories, and I am sure that if it could be then it could be done in peace-time. Commercial property owners have done it for a hundred years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find a means of incorporating the idea in the Bill so that the principle may be operated as it was done in respect of factories built in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hayman: There could be no better example of the importance of the Amendment than that provided by West Cornwall. In West Cornwall we are about 170 miles in a direct line by road from Bristol, but the journey by rail takes nearly six hours. I would emphasise that the nearest source of employment of any size for men in the engineering works at Camborne-Redruth or the ship-repairing docks at Falmouth would be at Bristol or Southampton. Those are the two main ports to which our men look for alternative employment when there is slackness. This week in a Written Answer the Minister of Labour told me that the unemployment figure at Falmouth in November was 9·6 per cent. and at Redruth 6·5 per cent.
The rent method seems to be one of the best ways of inducing employers to set up new industries in our area. If any hon. Member thinks that West Cornwall started industrial life only in this century, I would remind him that we are perhaps the oldest industrial unit in the United Kingdom. From an engineering point of view, we have been a unit for at least two centuries. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), remoteness and the cost of transport are very relevant factors.

Mr. T. W. Jones: The Minister's observations on the Amendment were very disappointing indeed to those of us who represent remote areas.


I believe that the Committee will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) made a formidable case for providing some additional inducements for industrialists to go to the remote areas.
Merionethshire has a great deal to offer industrialists in the way of labour. I would point out to the Minister that we have one commodity which is of great value nowadays, and here I am referring to our water resources. The electricity authorities have realised this and are now busy constructing a hydro-electricity scheme which will be unique in Europe. An atomic power station is being constructed at Trawsfynydd. However, as I told the Committee the other evening, when those works are completed, there w ill again be a great measure of unemployment in the county.
10.0 p.m.
I can confirm what has been said about industrialists being put off by the county's remoteness. Industrialists come to the county to build houses for holidays there—as do many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—they climb our mountains and they fish in our rivers, but they stop short of building their factories in the county. Let us therefore be able to do something to induce them to come to areas such as that which I represent. It is not much to ask the Minister to help us in this way.
Let me give one example of how transport costs have gone against us, even this year. A firm sent representatives to inspect a site at Bala. The representatives were favourably impressed and gave us the impression that they would certainly return to establish a factory. However, when they consulted their accountants, they were advised that transport costs were prohibitive. As a result of that, they had to tell us that they were unable to build a factory in the county. The right hon. Gentleman had questioned whether transport costs counted for anything. That is a case in point and I can give him further details if he wants them. I hope that he will reconsider the Amendment and tell us something more hopeful for the remote areas.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: We have had one of the most disappointing answers of a very disappointing debate, but there are one or

two points to be made clear. The right hon. Gentleman said that in assessing rents the district valuer took into account certain factors. As I understand it, he takes into account the geographical circumstances and various other factors, some of them mentioned in the Amendment.
If that is the present practice, what is now proposed is not at all different. If the present practice is to continue, we shall be no better off. Rents have not been any lower in Anglesey, Caernarvon-shire or Carmarthenshire than they have been in Flintshire, which is very much nearer to the central markets. The right hon. Gentleman is answering our arguments by saying that he intends to continue a practice which has been totally ineffective up to date.
He said that the costs of transport had been exaggerated. The main reason given by the Government for taking one of the largest enterprises for which the Government have ever given an I.D.C.—in fact, the largest for many years past—and for sending it to an area where there was full employment, instead of to an area where there was unemployment, was the additional costs of transport. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that we are exaggerating transport costs.
Deputation after deputation has come from South-West Wales to urge the Government to assist us, but every time we have received the same answer. We have been told that our transport costs are too high, that the area is inaccessible and remote, as though we lived in the Sahara Desert. I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that we do not live in the Sahara. We are going to live a jolly sight nearer to him and make his life a misery if he does not meet us on this.
The final test of the Bill will be not only the amount of employment that it will provide, but the amount of employment that it will provide in these remote and inaccessible areas.

Mr. Maudling: I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that she could never make my life a misery, though I am sure she will go on trying to do so.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said. the Bill does not tie the Board of Trade


to any particular level of rents. In practice, we operate on the district valuer's valuation, as the Select Committee's Report pointed out. The Report said:
In assessing current market value rent, the District Valuer uses all the evidence he can obtain including the geographical location of the factory; services and facilities of every kind;…
I should have thought that the district valuer in his assessment was already taking into account considerations of remoteness and accessibility, which is what the Amendment requires.
I accept the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen that this has not proved to be enough. I do not accept that the Bill does not prevent us going on on another basis if we are convinced that we ought to. It is not possible to lay on the management corporations a duty to adjust the rent so as to offset the disadvantages of such remoteness when that has been done by the district valuer. It is not practical to ask us to do that. Nor do we accept the suggestion that the management corporations should take over the functions of the district valuer. I have quoted the Report of the Select Committee, with which I entirely agree.
I realise that I have not satisfied the point of view of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but I have done my best to explain my reasons. I hope that if the Committee does not accept my reasons it will take the necessary action.

Mr. Jay: I do not rise to make the right hon. Gentleman's life a misery at this moment but to put this brief point to him. He told us that the rents were based on the market values of the factories as determined by the district valuer and that that in itself meant that the rents tended to be lower in remote areas. We do not deny that there is something in that, but the whole point of our argument is that this is not enough.

Surely it is reasonable to say that where, in practice, it is proved not to be enough, as may happen in Anglesey, North Wales, and other remote areas, the Government should take into account the point that we are putting forward now. That is perfectly reasonable, and that is what the Amendment says. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should not be the management corporation but the Board of Trade which should have this obligation laid on it. If one allows for that change the Amendment says very much the same as I have been arguing. It would read:
 … the Board of Trade shall take into account any remoteness or inaccessibility of the place in which such premises are situated and shall so adjust the rent asked as to offset the disadvantages of such remoteness or inaccessibility.
The right hon. Gentleman could argue that he is already doing that to some extent. He should, therefore, accept the Amendment thus adjusted and take on the additional obligation of doing it a bit more energetically.
May I give one example of transportation costs. Last February, I visited a refrigerator factory on the famous industrial estate at Dundee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has also been there. That firm in Dundee is manufacturing refrigerators which are made out of steel sheet brought all the way from Shotton. Most of the refrigerators are sold in the South, where they are sent by means of sea transport. The interesting point is that the additional costs of the two-way transport were just about offset by concessions on the rent which that firm was enjoying. The concession was just sufficient, but I think it establishes the point that a rent concession—and there are many remoter places than Dundee—may be effective in off-setting the undeniably higher transport costs.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 192.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m


Ainsley, William
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Carmichael, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, George


Awbery, Stan
Boyden, James
Cliffe, Michael


Bacon, Miss Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cronin, John




Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Deer, George
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Steele, Thomas


Evans, Albert
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Finch, Harold
McCann, John
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
McInnes, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Dingle
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Forman, J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Swain, Thomas


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Swingler, Stephen


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, A. C.
Sylvester, George


Galpern, Myer
Mapp, Charles
Symonds, J. B


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Wade, Donald


Grey, Charles
Morris, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Neal, Harold
Warbey, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.
Whitlock, William


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coins Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest
Woof, Robert


Holt, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Houghton, Douglas
Redhead, E. C.



Howell, Charles A.
Reynolds, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Elliott, R. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Aitken, W. T.
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C.


Allason, James
Fell, Anthony
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Alport, C. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Joseph, Sir Keith


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fisher, Nigel
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Batsford, Brian
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gardner, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kitson, Timothy


Berkeley, Humphry
Gibson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, J.


Bidgood, John C.
Glover, Douglas
Leavey, J. A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Bishop, F. P.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Black. Sir Cyril
Godber, J. B.
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bossom, Clive
Goodhew, Victor
Longbottom, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Box, Donald
Green, Alan
Loveys, Walter H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gurden, Harold
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Brains, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
MacArthur, Ian


Bullard, Denys
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaren, Martin


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayre.)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McMaster, Stanley


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Madden, Martin


Chichester Clark, R.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hiley, Joseph
Marten, Nell


Collard, Richard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Cooper, A. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Cordle, John
Hocking, Philip N.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Critchley, Julian
Holland-Martin, Christopher
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hollingworth, John
Mills, Stratton


Cunningham, Knox
Hopkins, Alan
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Curran, Charles
Hornby, R. P.
Montgomery, Fergus


Currie, G. B. H.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John


Deedes, W. F.
Howard Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nabarro, Gerald


de Ferranti, Basil
Hughes-Young, Michael
Heave, Airey


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar


du Cann, Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Noble, Michael


Duncan, Sir James
Jackson, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Duthie, Sir William
James, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)







Page, Graham
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Russell, Ronald
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Partridge, E.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wall, Patrick


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Seymour, Leslie
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Peel, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watts, James


Percival, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Webster, David


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Smithers, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Whitelaw, William


Pitt, Miss Edith
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pott, Percivall
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stodart, J. A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wise, Alfred


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Talbot, John E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ramsden, James
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Rees, Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woollam, John


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Ridsdale, Julian
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Roots, William
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mr.Brooman-White and Mr. Sharples.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, at end insert:
(5) In the exercise of its functions under the foregoing provisions of this section a Manage-merit Corporation shall from time to time consult with the bodies appointed by the Board and known as "Regional Boards for Industry" in England, Scotland or Wales, as the case may be, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring a Management Corporation to consult in relation to any exercise of its functions with any such Regional Board

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Peart), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and the two in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith):
In page 6, line 34, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Cumberland Development Council in matters affecting Cumberland.
In line 34, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Staffordshire County Council and the Newcastle-under-Lyme borough and rural district councils, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the management corporation to consult with these councils.
In line 34, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Trafford Park Estates, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Estates Limited.
In line 34, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Estates Management Corporation for England shall consult with the Stoke City Industrial Sites Committee, and a direction may be given under subsection (1) of this section requiring the Management Corporation to consult with the Sites Committee.

Mr. Willey: In am sure that will be for the convenience of the Committee.
I think I ought to say at once that I have an interest in this matter. In fact, I am being diminished by this Bill. I am at present a member of the North-Eastern Trading Estate Company, which will be abolished when this Bill becomes law. and it is in the light of my experience on the Board of this trading estate company that I wish to move this Amendment.
I was somewhat encouraged by the gloss which the President of the Board of Trade gave to the Management Corporation. I do not attribute any responsibility for this Bill to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a Measure which was in the Department awaiting him, but I am sorely disappointed by this part of the Bill. I think it is a Bill which had two major objectives—one to provide a vehicle for the descheduling of some of the areas or parts of areas, and the other to destroy the present structure of the Development Areas. I know quite well that the Department has never been too happy about the powers of the trading estate companies. I think it is a great pity that they are going, and, certainly, speaking for the North-East, I would say that the trading estate company there has played a very real part in the life of the North-East. I am happy to deduce from one thing which the right hon. Gentleman said that we can expect the new Management Corporation to be located at Team Valley. That, at any rate, will be some concession.

Mr. Maudling: I said in the north of England.

Mr. Willey: Obviously, if it is going to the North, it will go to the Team Valley, where there is excellent accommodation. This will be some compensation. One of the reasons why this structure of trading estate companies was so effective was not only because of the siting of the boards in the Development Areas themselves, and not only because of the local membership of the boards. I would have been more heartened if the right hon. Gentleman had paid some tribute to the work which they have done. This is unpaid work by people from both sides of industry and other walks of life in the Development Areas, and it has had a very real impact on the Development Areas themselves, in many other ways than the location of industry.
This has largely been because of the intricate, complex and effective pattern of consultation. There are various bodies in the Development Areas which have been in close contact with the trading estate companies. The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the De-


velopment Association, but he did not mention the Regional Boards for Industry, which have played their part. The various associations and societies of industrialists, with the trade unions, have all played an effective part not only in assisting the trading estate companies but also in helping in some of the difficult questions of location.
It seems to me that one of the bad consequences of this Bill is that it will put all that on one side. The right hon. Gentleman has been saying, and I accept what he says, that he wants this activity to continue, but it is going to be much less effective once the trading estate companies have been removed. What we are trying to do in the present Amendment, and in the others being considered with it, is to provide for some form of consultation with the Management Corporation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously look at this, because it has been a very effective and constructive part of Development Area policy.
I know, and I concede this, that it is not a thing which is welcomed within a Department. I know that trading estate companies have been subject to a great deal of irksome interference from the Board of Trade. I have always taken the view, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will share it, that it would have been far better if the trading estate companies had been given commercial discretion. Certainly, in our own case, we could have given a much better return on the Treasury money advanced to us, but we did not do so badly as it was.
We have a lot to gain from taking advantage of the experience of people in different industries and on both sides of industry. Surely the Government will concede—this is the point of the present Amendment—that the regional boards for industry have, been of great assistance to the Government. They readily seek their advice. What I am proposing in this Amendment is that the Management Corporation should follow the pattern set by the Government and seek the advice of the regional boards. I have suggested the regional boards because upon them are many of the people who have concerned themselves with policy in the

Development Areas and the continuity of consultation with such people would be some pledge that the Government were not following a purely bureaucratic course.
I fear very much that this is going to be largely the end of Government building. As the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised time after time, this is going to be no more than an estate management corporation. If we have nothing more than that, it will be a very serious loss. It will be the end of a very successful industrial experiment which brought forward magnificent co-operation within the Development Areas. That will not be replaced, but if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the spirit of this Amendment and provide for consultation plus an obligation on the Management Corporation to consult, that would at any rate mitigate the harm he will otherwise do in destroying a great deal of the voluntary constructive effort which flowed not only during and after the war but before the war when these were Special Areas. This has a long history, and it will be very sad if it is all sacrificed.
Now that he is responsible for the Bill, although I do not blame him for the Bill as drafted, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this plea and provide for some machinery which will ensure that the new Management Corporation will not lose all the advantages we have had in the Development Areas and that he will make it incumbent upon the Corporation to consult some of the effective voices from the Development Areas.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to support the two Amendments whose object is to bring about maximum consultation between the Management Corporation and Trafford Park Estates and the City of Stoke-on-Trent Estates. I want to present evidence to show the correctness of what we are suggesting. Those two industrial estates have nothing for which to thank the Board of Trade. We have not had a penny from the Board of Trade. The City of Stoke-on-Trent has had nothing but discouragement from it
10.30 p.m.
This is a new start, and people who exert voluntary effort and civic effort are worthy of more encouragement from the


central Government than they have had up to the present. I look upon the Minister as a big man. He is relatively young. He has got to his present position on merit. He is all right—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members should not provoke me too much on that. The Minister has handled pretty big affairs on the Continent. Let us give credit where it is due. I put it in that way because I hope the right hon. Gentleman will handle this Bill in a big way when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
I do not want to reiterate much of what I have said to the Committee already. but I will say that I have sufficient confidence in most of the civil servants to believe that if the right hon. Gentleman does that they will handle the matter in a big way, too, and will make their contribution. If it is approached in that way, then at last my hon. Friends will begin to get some encouragement in the industrial areas.
I refer to Stoke-on-Trent and to Trafford Park Estates in particular. I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me for doing so, but that is my own area which I know so well. Let me repeat that it is really tragic that there are almost 11 million people living within a radius of fifty miles of where I live who have worked to produce a mountain of wealth. For a hundred and fifty years the people of that region have worked to produce mountains of wealth and it is time the people there got the benefits of a Bill like this.
That is why we are asking for maximum co-operation between the local authorities, our city and Trafford Park, in particular, and the Ministry, so that if the right hon. Gentleman administers the Bill in the way we hope he will. they, too, will get some benefit from the Bill. It may be that the Bill will not be applied to the area to the extent we think is justified. We hope it will be fully applied to the area, but if it is not, if we cannot have the maximum co-operation in the application of the Bill, we say we ought to have the maximum consultation to see what can be done, and to see that all that can be done within the limits of the possibilities is done.
Trafford Park Estates is the most efficient industrial trading estate in the world. It was the first in the world. I remember when it was a beautiful wood. nearly as nice as where the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) lives. I have seen where he lives. People like to see and to be shown monuments. I was taken to see where the hon. Gentleman lives. I will give myself away. If the hon. Member wants to know who took me, it was the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I was delighted. It was a place of beauty. Trafford Park used to he like that. I have seen it completely changed. I shall not say why, because I do not want to become involved in all that story and argument. However, I have seen it completely changed until now it is a great industrial area employing at least 60,000 people. It has the great Ship Canal on one side and the Bridgewater Canal on the other. It has some of the finest sidings in the country and some of the greatest concerns, and yet there are miles and miles of land still capable of development.
The reason I am making this point is that in our area we have 68,000 unemployed. The fact is hidden behind the facade of percentages, which hides the dark human tragedy. Because of the density of population, no one gives much attention to that number of unemployed. That is why I ask the Minister to see that there should be the maximum cooperation. There is no one more friendly with those who come from Scotland and Wales than I, and I derive great satisfaction when I think of my friendships with them, but at the same time we have to think of those on our own doorstep.
Where I was employed there are 20,000. One does not live there in marble halls, and to get on there one does it by merit, like the right hon. Gentleman. They do an enormous amount of research there, some of the finest research in the world. The Americans claim to have harnessed the nucleus in the atom. It was done at Trafford Park, Rugby. and Manchester University. The reason why the Americans claim that is because it became too serious a matter to carry on experiments and investigations there during the nightly bombardment of our industrial areas in the war. Everything


that was developed there was taken to America, and the Americans accumulated all the information, with the results that we all know.
Before the war, £150,000 was spent in one establishment alone on research work, which was more than most districts were spending in a year. As a result of all this scientific development, we were in the forefront of world engineering, but after development was perfected the factory was removed to Motherwell where 2,000 people are employed. I understand that co-operation between unions and management there is as good as it can be. Through the influence of Lord Chandos, other firms are going to Northern Ireland. But in spite of this research and engineering development and the benefit of accumulated skills of generations of our people, we are seeing factories removed to all parts of the country whilst 68,000 people in the area I represent are unemployed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: And others are on short time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This is why we are asking that there should be the maximum consultation between the responsible authorities, the President of the Board of Trade, and Trafford Park Estates.
The finest pottery in the world is produced in Stoke-on-Trent. It is universally admired, yet we are losing exports to the Japanese who are getting into the American market to a very great extent. I do not think that the Americans are playing the game with us, but it would be out of order for me to pursue that point now. About 100 American firms have come into this country and are established in some of the Development Areas. They have obtained sites in Scotland and are running some of the most beautiful factories in the country. I have not seen them, but I have read about them in the Board of Trade Journal. It is a pleasure to see that happening, but we want to modernise factories in Stoke-on-Trent, and we receive no support or encouragement.
Wedgwood's have modernised theirs at great risk. They have put an enormous amount of capital into it. They are very public-spirited people. They inherited great wealth and they have great enterprise. The new factory

is in a lovely environment where there are trees, shrubs, flowers and clean air. The result is that output has gone up. This shows what a business proposition it is to apply the policy which we on this side of the Committee are advocating. None of us can do justice to our contribution to life unless we enjoy good health. A man cannot be as vigorous as he ought to be if he has to live in the areas in which some of us live.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member is looking very healthy.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I will not pursue that remark.
The Wedgwood factory is a concrete example of the correctness of the views I am expressing. Two large industrial estates have been laid out in Stoke-on-Trent. The city has the finest possible town clerk. He is one of the most conscientious men I have ever worked with. The city has done everything possible behind the scenes to get the Board of Trade to influence industrial concerns to come into the area. They have met with no success.
It is for these reasons and others that we are asking that these Amendments should be considered. If they are considered sympathetically I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will act accordingly, but I want an undertaking from the President of the Board of Trade that when the Bill becomes an Act there will be the maximum consultation and cooperation between the Corporation and the authorities for which I have been speaking.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I heard the President of the Board of Trade say yesterday that we must have a new conception in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Of course, the unemployed man only knows that a job is the most essential factor in his life. I feel that it is the Government's duty to see that a job is provided for him. The unemployed man in Cumberland has confidence in the men who provided a large number of jobs in that area.
An industrial company formed in 1934 has done valuable work in the Cumberland area. It knows the area and it has retained the beautiful spots such as Keswick. which is in the part of


the country from which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) comes. By its research and its work it has been able to bring industry to the important parts of Cumberland. Its work was so successful that in 1936 when we had dole queues and excessive unemployment, the Cumberland Development Board was able to bring industry to the right places in the area to relieve that situation.
Is it fair that this Board should have to go? Is the Minister so sure and so confident—we know the power which under the Bill it is assumed that he will wield—that he and the five representatives who will be appointed for England will be the people with the necessary ability and knowledge to deal with an area like Cumberland? Surely the Minister is going to take advice and assistance from such men as Lord Adams, who has spent a lifetime in bringing industry into the Cumberland area. Is that sort of assistance going to be ignored by the right hon. Gentleman?
Are these five persons who are to constitute the Corporation going to sit somewhere in the North? I hope they will sit in Cumberland. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that he worked on the board of the Team Valley Trading Estate. I hope that these people will remain in Cumberland itself. Will they be able to visit other parts of the country and inspect the sites to make sure that they are suitable for industry to occupy and for the right type of men and women to be employed in? Or will they be responsible only for the renting of factories and the collecting of those rents? Who is going to do this work? Will it be the ordinary civil servant or is the Minister going to be all-powerful? Will not the Minister consult the various industrial corporations in the country? Is it the Minister's new conception of dealing with unemployment that he should bring all these unemployed together and transfer them and industry elsewhere, leaving other areas without the right to attract new industries to see that men and women are given jobs?
In Cumberland there are more than 3,000 men and women out of work—3·2 per cent. Is it the intention that the good work which the West Cumberland Development Company has done over

the years shall not be continued? The men who have been responsible for this company have great know. ledge and experience in bringing industry to the area. Is all that to be wasted? Is the Minister prepared to consult Lord Adams and the company and to make them part of the machinery of the Bill? I ask him to consult the West Cumberland Development Company and to take advantage of its knowledge in order that he will be able to attract industry into this beautiful area of Cumberland, instead of leaving 3,000 men and women out of work. I assure him that the company could give him valuable help in solving the problem.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I want to make a plea to the Committee and the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the smaller areas. Frankly, I would not do so had the Government yesterday been willing to accept the Amendment which we submitted seeking to retain some form of Parliamentary control over the list of localities to which the Bill will apply. We are compelled to make this plea because, if the Bill is passed in its present form, we do not know, as representatives of areas afflicted with unemployment, what other chance we shall have of making the case.
Quite rightly, my hon. Friends from areas of high unemployment have kept the spotlight throughout the proceedings on those larger districts in Scotland and Wales which are severely afflicted, and all of us on this side of the Committee have full sympathy with them, but I want to draw attention to the position of smaller areas of high unemployment and to the grave danger that unless some provision is inserted into the Bill these smaller areas may be totally neglected.
We all remember the terrible human tragedy of the distressed areas between the wars. I remember the terrible human tragedy of certain areas of high unemployment between the wars which were never scheduled as distressed areas because they were not recognised as being big enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith) knows, when I first went to Staffordshire twenty-three years ago I went to a district which for five years had had 80 per cent. unemployment. It


continued to have about 80 per cent. of unemployment until the war broke out. Only the outbreak of the Second World War brought back any prospects of employment for the men who had been thrown out of work in Kidsgrove in North Staffordshire when the pit closed in the 1930 depression.
This was a small urban district. It was reckoned to be too small to be scheduled as a distressed area. I remember in 1937 and 1938 taking round a petition to be submitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and other Members for North Staffordshire, on which we collected about 4,000 signatures, pleading that this little urban district should be scheduled as a distressed area, pleading for recognition of the desperate human tragedy that existed and of the contempt with which society was dealing with this area in which the men had no prospect year after year of finding any jobs.
It is right that in the consideration of this Bill we should give first priority to the large areas in which a very high rate of joblessness exists. But let us not forget some much smaller areas dotted about all over the country in which high unemployment exists amongst workers upon whose tragedy the spotlight is very rarely cast and whose interests may very easily be overlooked by the Industrial Management Corporation unless some direction is given to it to deal with that problem.
It may be reckoned by the Board of Trade that perhaps Newcastle-under-Lyme does not rate as an area of high unemployment according to the definition in this Bill, although in the last few years unemployment has been 4 per cent. in January, 1957, 3·6 per cent. in January, 1958, 5·6 last January and is expected to be rather higher this coming January. But within these figures for these areas in North Staffordshire there are contained smaller districts in which there has been a hard core of unemployment. There is a hard core of men who have been without jobs and who will certainly not get jobs unless Government action is taken to provide jobs. As many of my hon. Friends know, in many coalmining districts there is a core of disabled workers who exist year after year without much hope, with prolonged

unemployment, and who know that unless special action is taken by the Government or by some public body to provide them with some special form of employment they have very little chance of having the dignity of possessing jobs once again.
I know it is thought that Remploy deals with the situation affecting large numbers of these men, but that is not true. Remploy does a good job for the very severely disabled, but on a very small scale. It touches only the fringes of the problem. We all know, especially those of us from coalmining districts and other areas in which there are certain kinds of industrial diseases and accidents, that this hard core exists and that it does not change much from year to year.
Sometimes in a small village in a remote area there is a high rate of unemployment on which the spotlight is never cast. It is not noticed much by anybody, and it is more than likely to be overlooked by the Industrial Management Corporation. Moreover, it is precisely in this kind of district, such as North Staffordshire, that there is also the economic insecurity arising from dependence on one or two industries or types of industrial employment. There may be extreme dependence upon coal mining and the prospect of work being available in coal mining. In some areas, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred, there is dependence on the pottery industry, which has been subject to very many fluctuations during the last few years. In other places, there may be dependence upon employment in the Royal Ordnance factories.
In North Staffordshire, we have had experience of the disruption of employment and the sudden increase in unemployment which can arise from changes in the Government's defence programme. An ordnance factory has been closed. without any action being taken to provide new employment in its place. In Redway Green. near Crewe, there is another very large ordnance factory which provides employment now for many hundreds of workers in North Staffordshire, and there, too, the same thing might occur as occurred at the Royal Ordnance factory at Swynnerton.


I referred yesterday to the effects of Government action in reimposing Purchase Tax upon pottery, in raising interest rates and creating unemployment in the building trade. Government action in many respects has created a growing toll of unemployment in the very areas where unemployment is imminent and the threat is ever-present. There is great apprehension felt by the workers in all these industries, especially when they hear that a pit is to close. Many hundreds, or, indeed, thousands, have left the pottery industry during the last few years. For those whose employment depends on armament manufacture, there is constant insecurity. Let us suppose that, suddenly, there is total disarmament; what will happen to them?
We ask the President of the Board of Trade to give specific instructions to the management corporations to consult with the public bodies and representatives not only of those well-known localities which have high unemployment but also of the small areas which, equally, have comparatively high unemployment, areas in which there is a hard core of disabled unemployed, areas in which there is a dependence upon one particular industry which causes a constant threat to the livelihood of the workers there. The management corporations should be specifically told to consult with people in such areas so that the workers shall not be left in the state of neglect and contempt in which they languished in days past.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds). The Amendment to which he spoke is designed to provide that the Management Corporation for England
shall consult with the Cumberland Development Council in all matters affecting Cumberland.
I imagine that there will be no controversy about this, and the Minister will give a favourable answer. Although I regret to see that there are not very many hon. Members opposite present in the Chamber at this late hour—I can understand their shyness about this Bill and their indifference—I feel sure that those who are here will readily support this Amendment which creates large regional boards for England, for Scotland and for Wales.
11.0 p.m.
Under this Bill, the West Cumberland Industrial Company Limited is to go out. It is listed in the second Schedule. So in my own county there is a vacuum. There is to be created a large corporation, a large bureaucracy. It is a terrible shame that we are to have this type of administration. I criticised it on Second Reading, and I will oppose it throughout the Bill.
To counteract this wrong tendency in our national policy, we believe there should be adequate consultation with local representatives. That is all we are asking. Under the present administration, the West Cumberland Industrial Company Limited does consult the Cumberland Development Council, and I think that is reasonable.
Although the Minister may disagree because I fundamentally criticise his Bill, I think hon. Members opposite and the Minister must agree that in the actions of a large corporation there should be adequate consultation. So we ask in our Amendment that in any matter affecting Cumberland, particularly the West Cumberland Development Area, there should be proper consultation. It may well be that the Minister will argue that we need not have this in legislation. I hope he will. I am certain that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment if we can get the assurance that the Corporation to be set up will consult local people.
Our area has been a very successful Development Area. Local initiative has been created, and we are, in a sense, a success story. I would hone that the Minister will give us a favourable reply. because the Cumberland Development Council is a body which has been closely linked with the West Cumberland Industrial Development Company. It is comprised of local authorities, local industrialists and people concerned with industrial expansion. They have conducted industrial surveys in conjunction with the University of Durham and other bodies of that kind.
I hope the Minister will not be negative. Even if he is not able to accept all the details of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaver (Mr. Symonds), I hope he will be able to accept the spirit of it. I am pretty


certain that other hon. Members will believe it is right in a large Bill of this kind, where we are creating a large organisation and giving it powers to develop industry and, we hope, conquer unemployment in particular areas, that this Corporation should consult on matters affecting the area. I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has just come in, will support me on this. I know he favours local initiative.

Mr. Nabarro: Individual initiative.

Mr. Peart: Yes, of course, like Lord Adams, who has been mentioned by my hon. Friends, and like prominent local people who, through their individual initiative, are anxious to work for the common good of the area. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kidderminster supports me in this.
That is all I am asking for. I will not labour it. I assure the Minister that here we have common agreement. Let us have a good answer for Cumberland, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will willingly withdraw his Amendment and accept the spirit of the Minister's reply.

Mr. Maudling: I have been asked by several hon. Members to accept the spirit of the Amendments. I am sure that I can do so. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) perhaps went a little way beyond the purpose of the Amendments, which is limited to the matter of consultation, and delivered a back-hander at the whole set-up which had already been settled under Clause 8.
The hon. Member expressed regret that I had not paid a tribute to the companies. But I did so very deliberately on Second Reading. I will repeat what I said:
I think that we can say with confidence that the existing companies have done a very good job. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by all concerned, including particularly those who have given of their efforts and work freely to the companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959: Vol. 613, c. 47.]
I do not exclude the hon. Member himself. He is right in reminding me of the very good work that the companies have been doing.
I think that the principle that there should be close consultation in these

matters is, clearly, a sound one, and I am very much of the view that the Management Corporations should consult the local bodies on matters where it will be useful to do so. But there is a certain misconception here in the minds of hon. Members as to the functions of the Management Corporations. They will not have the job of bringing industry into the area—something to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred—as I said on Clause 8.

Mr. Peart: Who will have that job?

Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade. The function of the Corporations is fairly strictly management of the Board of Trade properties. It is the supreme responsibility of the Board of Trade under the Bill to bring industry into the areas. I will certainly undertake that my regional controllers and all concerned in the Board of Trade will not only be instructed to obtain advice but will seek at all times to obtain the advice of people like Lord Adams, who understand these things so well. We shall, of course, be consulting the regional boards because our regional controllers are members of them. So there is a perfectly clear tie-up.
The point is that the Board of Trade is responsible for policy. I know that what the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and others are concerned about is policy. What is done about bringing people into the areas and to make sure that the people who decide policy are fully aware of the real needs of the areas is the responsibility of the Board of Trade.
I will give an undertaking that in the case of all these development councils and the local authorities my officers will have full consultation with the people concerned. We want the benefit of their advice. I think that is accepting the spirit of the Amendments. To accept the letter of the Amendments would be a misconception of the functions of the Management Corporations. To lay on them a formal duty of consultation with these bodies would not serve any useful purpose. I hope that with that explanation I shall be able to persuade the Committee to agree with me.

Mr. Wiley: I am sure that the Committee is greatly obliged for the response of the right hon. Gentleman. If I said that he did not pay any tribute to the companies, I was certainly exagerrating. I was aware of what he had said, but I am also aware what a courteous Minister he is and I did not think that the tribute he paid was sufficiently warm.
I do not want to return to the discussion we have had about the functions of the new Management Corporations, but I think that we are getting a different attitude now from the Government and it is unwelcome. While I say that, it is comforting to get an assurance that there will be an encouragement of consultation. I will pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's regional officers, who have always been very willing and have encouraged local consultation. It is some consolation to know that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage consultation at the regional level through his regional officers.
I do not expect any undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will look back again at the issue raised by the Amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman study the precedents of the new towns legislation, with which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) intended to deal? Although we hope that it will not be the case, the characteristics of a Development Area may remain in a certain area and there might then be a very good argument for setting up a local committee to advise the board within the limited functions which it will exercise. I do not invite the right hon. Gentleman to give any undertaking about that. I know that he will study the matter. With the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Watkins: Subsection (7, b) provides that the Management Corporation will now act as agents for the Development Commissioners. On 30th July, 1958, the then President of the Board of Trade announced that the Development Commission would make grants

towards easing the problems of depopulation in Wales and Scotland. Wonder whether those facilities will still be available under the new Management Corporations.
If so, who will be responsible to Parliament and to hon. Members seeking information about the work of the Development Commissioners? Every year I have been able to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the amount of money paid out by the Development Commissioners in Wales. I hope that that facility will remain.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Development Commissioners will be allowed to carry on their work as they have been doing. Their becoming agents may represent an improvement for Wales. The industrial estates organisation has been responsible for this kind of work in Wales in the past, and there has often been delay in dealing with applications for assistance.
When the Development Commissioners are considering grants, I hope they will consult the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association.

Mr. Maudling: I assure the hon. Member that the Bill does not vary the powers or functions of the Development Commission, or Parliamentary responsibility there for. It is merely that as a matter of practice the corporation can act as the Commission's agent.
I undertake that the body he mentioned will be included in my general undertaking about consultations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(ACCOUNTS OF MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS AND THE BOARD.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jay: Is it necessary in this legislation to have all the details which are specified in this Clause? I have the gravest doubts about whether there is any necessity for the President of the Board of Trade to insert a reference to the constitution and working of the Management Corporations. However, we have passed from that subject and I must confine myself to this Clause.


11.15p.m.
If we look at the Clause, we are told that the accounts shall be kept in a certain fashion; that there shall be auditors to deal with the accounts; that no person shall be qualified to be an auditor unless he is a member of certain bodies, and that the reports and accounts shall be made out and delivered in a certain way. Surely it cannot be necessary to put all this into an Act of Parliament. It seems to be legislation run mad. The proper way to frame an Act of Parliament is to put in the very minimum which has to be in statutory form.
If we examine the provisions of the 1945 Act, we see that instead of all these Clauses we merely have the words:
The Board of Trade may with the consent of the Treasury make loans to trading or industrial estate companies …
That gives all the necessary legislative sanction for the operation of the industrial estate companies which the President of the Board of Trade has told us, in the last few minutes, have acted with great success and deserve every praise for the way in which they have done their job.
It puzzles me that in order to do what is, in effect, the same job—admittedly on a different scale, and perhaps in other parts of the country—whereas for 15 years it has been perfectly satisfactory to act under two lines of the necessary Statute, we now have several Clauses, which go into every detail, except to say how they shall stick stamps on envelopes and at what hour they are to arrive at the office on Monday mornings. Even if we cannot streamline the Bill any more we would like to be told by the right hon. Gentleman why there is a need for all this detail. Is it too late for him to consider, simply in the interests of legislative efficiency, whether he can slim this Clause a little before we part with it?

Mr. Maudling: I do not like long Clauses, for obvious reasons. The purpose of the Clause is to make sure that the money voted by Parliament under Clause 4 to the Board of Trade, and the money spent by the Board of Trade in defraying the expenses of the corporations shall be properly accounted for. There is provision for the accounts having to be submitted to the Comp-

troller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is all in the process of Parliamentary control.
I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's point about the 1945 Act, but I am informed that the accounting provisions of the Bill follow the lines of those in regard to the corporations established by Statute and are dependent upon moneys voted by Parliament. We are following common form here. Whether the common form is as streamlined as it should be I am not arguing, but the purpose is to provide for proper Parliamentary accountability, and to carry it out in the normal way.

Mr. Jay: But in the other case were not public moneys voted and lent on a considerable scale by the Treasury, via the Board of Trade, to the industrial estates companies over the years? This elaborate machinery was not necessary then, and it is a little puzzling—if the former method has proved satisfactory for 15 years—to understand why it has to be completely revolutionised now.

Mr. Maudling: It puzzles me. I will find out. If, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we can make the provisions shorter, so much the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(INDUSTRIAL ESTATES CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at subsections (1) and (2)? Here we have a suggestion that a co-ordinating committee of some sort should be appointed and that this committee should consist of the three chairmen of the Management Corporations and two other individuals. This committee will discuss matters of common interest to the corporations operating throughout the length and breadth of the country, and these interests are bound to be very deep, in view of the tremendous job they are endeavouring to tackle under the Bill.
I have listened to these debates for four days, and I have heard speeches


from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) telling us that there is no road and very little means of communication between one part of his constituency and another, and we have heard of the great problem of depopulation.
We have heard of the great need for redistribution. We have heard the arguments in favour of diversification. We have heard great arguments this evening calling for consultation with established bodies which have been making a notable contribution towards furthering full employment in different parts of the country. Here we have the immensity of the problem which confronts the country as a whole, yet, according to this Clause, five people are to consider all these aspects. I do not think so small a number can do justice to the task.
In addition to considering matters of common interest, they are to give advice on the functions of the corporations. We know that the corporations will have an impossibly difficult task. Circumstances from area to area and constituency to constituency differ in varying degrees. In some parts of the country compared with others the circumstances are poles apart, yet, according to subsections (1) and (2), five people are to co-ordinate, direct and guide in general terms the operations of the Bill, the object of which is to overcome serious unemployment in many parts of the country.
I think the work of this Committee will not be as was stated by the President of the Board of Trade. He argued that it was technical and financial, but it can go much further. Its members are to co-ordinate activity, but a great deal of activity is not determined by financial or technical experts. They have to be satisfied about the cost of projects and the cost of all the services we have been discussing, the water, drainage, roads and other services. In view of that, I think five individuals are not an adequate number to deal with so serious and complicated a problem.
hope the President of the Board of Trade will have another look at that aspect of the problem. There are 400,000 unemployed—that is the immensity of the problem. Governments have

been unable to solve this problem year after year, yet we are asking five people to get together and to co-ordinate the activities of the management corporations, get the necessary experience and. as a result, eventually to guide the Board of Trade to deal with the problem once and for all.
The right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that we are to spend more than £3 million in this great effort to tackle unemployment.

Mr. Ross: It is not enough.

Mr. Dempsey: I do not regard the amount as great; we are only trifling with the problem. For that reason. I submitted an Amendment which would have enhanced the expenditure, but it was unacceptable to the Board of Trade. It is a considerable amount of money, however, for five people to advise on its spending. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at these two subsections. Some of us have had a long experience serving on committees associated with the Board of Trade. I personally served on one in Scotland for fourteen years, and my experience was that in the ramifications of these bodies one never found small committees of only five members, but rather that they were very representative. This committee, in view of the nature of the problem with which it will deal—something which is really staggering in view of the financial obligations will require more than three chairmen and two co-opted or other persons.
I should like to see a really representative committee of various sections of the British community. Of course. I do not want to see too large a committee which will become unwieldy and bureaucratic. It is dangerous to have a large, unwieldy committee, but it can be equally dangerous to have one so small that it will not be representative of those interests necessary to guide us with the specialised knowledge of the work of these corporations. Perhaps the President is being guided by Parkinson's Law; that the best committee is one which has two members, one of whom fails to turn up.
We shall not have a hundred per cent. attendance at these meetings. Therefore, we can look forward to fewer than


five. Having some experience in a more restricted sphere of the operations of Board of Trade committees, I earnestly appeal to the President to have another look at this. I hope that, in the light of such consideration, he will see his way to augment the committees.

Mr. Maudling: I have never thought that committees gain strength from increasing their numbers. The principle should be to keep them as small as one can so long as the interests concerned are not neglected. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the purpose of this body. It is not to be an operating body, nor is it to be concerned with distribution of industry policy. The concept is different. We have these three Management Corporations which will be doing the same job in three different areas. It seems to be only commonsense to have this committee so that there is some body that can compare experiences and advise the Board of Trade on management problems which arise in the areas for which each corporation is responsible.

Mr. Dempsey: But this committee will not be dealing with the actual problem of site acquisition and the development of industry.

Mr. Maudling: That is exactly right, and that is why we suggest a small committee.

Mr. Jay: The President has spoken of committees gaining strength, but do committees gain strength from having their whole constitution and behaviour written down in a Statute? Is it necessary, for example, to write into the Bill,
The Chairman of the Committee shall be such one of the members as the Board may from time to time direct"?
There are swarms of committees advising the Board of Trade in one way or another. Is this really necessary?

Mr. Maudling: There is public money involved here. The members will be paid expenses, and that is the reason for it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: Can the President of the Board of Trade say why on earth it

is necessary to have a co-ordinating committee at all? He is to have these three Management Corporations. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was attributing to the corporations functions they were not going to fulfil. What are they going to do? They are going to manage factories. That is all they are going to do.
As I understand it, they are not going to acquire land; they are not going to decide whether an additional place will be put up; they are not going to look for tenants; they are not going to determine rents. They are going to collect rents; they are going to see that the paint work is done from time to time; they are going to see that buildings do not fall into a state of disrepair; they are going to hire and, presumably, occasionally fire, their junior staff who go round and do the errands for them. Are they going to do any more than that? I rather gathered from what the President of the Board of Trade said that that is about the limit of their functions.
If that is to be the limit of the functions of these three corporations, does the right hon. Gentleman have to bring them together in a co-ordinating committee, so that they will get all the paint work done at the same regular intervals in the areas of the management corporations? I can understand his wishing to see the chairmen of the corporations from time to time, but does he not see the chairmen of the five industrial estate companies at present without anything appearing in any Act of Parliament about the President of the Board of Trade co-ordinating the activities of all the five industrial estates companies? There is nothing about this in any Act of Parliament at present.
Why on earth should the President of the Board of Trade want to have a Clause dealing with this when it is sufficient for him to invite the chairmen of the three corporations to meet him in London from time to time and have a talk with him if he has any doubt as to the efficacy with which any of them are carrying through their management duties? After all, a chairman might be advised by consultation with the chairman of another Management Corporation.
But I see the President of the Board of Trade is full of speech and wants to


give some justification for having this provision.

Mr. Maudling: I was only going to say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I will make this offer to him, if I may. I will consider whether it is necessary to have this provision in the Bill, if he for his part will consider whether he would like it removed. If he would like it removed and will put down an Amendment on Report to give effect to it, I will see if I can meet him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—{INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Page: I want to refer to subsection (2) in order to ascertain whether there is to be continuity of employment and of employees' rights when the Management Corporations take over the industrial estate companies. It is a sort of statutory take-over bid, and whenever this has occurred in previous Statutes, or almost whenever this has occurred, we have made certain that the employees' rights are maintained, that the new body taking over does observe its obligations towards employees of the taken over body or else pays compensation.
This is a principle which has been recognised for very many years—I think for about a century—in legislation, and we have had recent examples of it in the New Towns Act, 1946, when new towns took over gas and electricity undertakings, and we had an example of it in the Local Government Compensation Regulations in 1948, when rating functions were taken over by the local authorities. Perhaps even more similar to this type of Clause are the Orders under the Water Act, 1945, under which the companies taking over have recognised the rights of the employees, their grades they have reached, their pension rights and their superannuation rights.
I am not sure whether Clause 13 sufficiently recognises that obligation which I think should fall upon the Management Corporations. I imagine that the corporations, although only three as compared with the five trading estates, will be carrying out almost exactly the same job and will require almost exactly the same staff. Perhaps my question on this is superfluous and they will naturally take over the staff. Perhaps, too, they are under an obligation, if one reads subsection (2) aright, to take over the staff and observe the obligations towards it, because it says:
 … all property, rights and liabilities of any company to which this section applies shall at the commencement of this Act vest in the Management Corporation …
I presume, therefore, that the company's liabilities towards its servants and its officers would be taken over by the Management Corporations. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can give me that assurance.
The liabilities mentioned in the subsection are the liabilities of the company. In many cases pensions and superannuation funds are not vested in the employing company but in trustees. Perhaps I am being a little legalistic in interpreting these words, but the liabilities of the trustees of a pension fund would not be covered, as I read the subsection. I believe that this applies to the Wales and Monmouth Trading Estate, where there are certain particular provisions about the pension fund which I very much doubt would come under this subsection. I should like to have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Management Corporations will observe not only the grades reached by the employees whom they take over but also the pension and superannuation rights gained by them.

Mr. Maudling: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has raised these two points, and I should like to make the position clear.
Clause 13 (2), to which he refers, provides that all the rights and liabilities of an industrial estate company shall vest in the relevant corporation. This includes liabilities to its employees. Therefore, all the employees of the company will be entitled, as against the appropriate corporation, to whatever rights they had under their contract of service with the estate company.


There is a difficulty about pensions, because in all but one case the pension funds are managed by trustees. We are examining the pension schemes which the companies have been running and we shall ensure that the rights of the officers concerned will not be adversely affected by the Bill. If it is found necessary, I will table an appropriate Amendment at a later stage to cover this.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this matter. It is obvious that we must be concerned about these people who are likely to lose their jobs, particularly because we are attempting to deal with unemployment. But I was rather surprised at the reply from the President of the Board of Trade. He did not deal in toto with the points raised by the hon. Member. He referred to the corporations taking over the responsibilities and liabilities of the old trading estate companies, and he added that the corporations would pursue something of the same nature and degree of activities as were pursued by the old companies. But an examination of the duties to be imposed and the powers to be conferred upon the corporations will show that they are far more limited than the functions carried out by the companies.
The point on which I should like some clarification is whether it will be necessary for these corporations to employ the same number of staff as the old estate companies employed because of the limitation of the functions in relation one to another. If it is true that the degree of activity of the corporations is going to be less—the President of the Board of Trade and I were somewhat in agreement over what I said a short time ago might be some confusion on this issue—then obviously a smaller total number of staff will be required by the three corporations as against the five estate companies.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question not merely of the liabilities as employers, but asked what would happen as far as compensation for loss of jobs was concerned in the event of there not being sufficient work for the total staff employed by the companies that are now to go out of being. I know that we expect them to undertake certain local

activities of a voluntary kind, but in the sense that we know them at present they will cease to exist. Consequently, a problem may arise in that less staff will be required.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to devote some attention to this possibility of unemployment arising among these staffs and to the degree of compensation that he is prepared to offer the people so affected.

Mr. Maudling: It would certainly be paradoxical if one of the effects of the Bill was that of creating a serious unemployment problem. I am confident that will not arise. I would expect the great majority of the existing staff to carry on with the new corporations. I am not sure that the volume of work done by the staff will necessarily decrease. I would have thought that the staff had been largely engaged in the management functions, which continue, whereas the promotional functions would have been primarily followed up by members of the companies' boards themselves. I would not have thought that the change of functions would affect the staff numbers to any great extent. If, as we expect, we expand our activities, there will be more for the staff to do. I do not think that in total there will be very much difference.
We must face the fact that if there are only three bodies instead of more there will be fewer jobs at the top. On the other hand, the top jobs will be top jobs within a bigger organisation. One cannot give a guarantee that everyone will continue to be employed or continue in the same rank, but I would not have expected that there would be any great difficulty arising. As I said earlier, all the contractual rights of the people concerned will be transferred automatically.

Mr. Loughlin: I really am concerned about this matter, because there may be a possibility of some people becoming unemployed. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in the event of some people becoming redundant, he will see that they get adequate compensation?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think I have any power to do that. I do not think that one could give an undertaking of that kind. I am sure that the new corporations will do all they can to employ


all the staff of the existing companies. I do not think I can go so far as to make statutory provision for compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

11.45 p.m.

Clause 16.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jay: I want to draw attention to the last definition in this Clause—
'undertaking' means any trade or business, or any other activity providing employment".
Earlier, when we were arguing that for the purpose of the Bill "undertaking" would include a form of direct employment given by a Government Department, such as the Royal Dockyards or a Royal Ordnance factory, the right hon. Gentleman made a rather flippant reply when I pointed out that this definition—" and any other activity providing employment"— could cover such employment. He said that in his opinion Government Departments were not associated with activity and therefore they would not be covered. I hope that that was a flippant reply and not a Freudian slip expressing his own idea of the way in which his Department will carry out these powers.
May we take it that under this definition an undertaking would cover a local authority, certainly in any of its activities which provide employment? In other words, I refer to the trading activities and probably other activities of the local authority.
I ask this because if hon. Members turn to Clause 4—I will not discuss it but merely relate it to this definition—they will see that the D.A.T.A.C. powers of making grants and loans, mainly loans, are powers of making them to undertakings. I therefore suggest—and I think that this must be correct—that if we take this definition together with Clause 4, the Minister is taking power—1 certainly hope that he is—under the Bill to use D.A.T.A.C.. if there are suitable and appropriate cases, for making grants or loans to local authority undertakings. This was not possible under

the 1958 Act. The Minister of State declined an Amendment to that Act to include local authorities among the possible recipients of D.A.T.A.C. loans I think that the phrase then was "track-or business". I hope that in view of this definition that will now be possible.

Mr. Maudling: Possibly the sidenote to Clause 4 is a little misleading, because it will be seen from the text of the Clause and of Clause 3 that the grants are to be made not to the undertakings but to persons carrying on the undertakings. I understand that local authorities are legal persons, and that is where they are covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Loughlin: Many of us are very concerned about this Clause. We appreciate that it is very difficult to start thinking in terms of directing private industry into various areas, although. as I said on a previous occasion, I see nothing morally wrong in saying to a board of directors, "You must go to a particular area". The only valid argument there can be to directions of any kind is the interference with the freedom of the individual. If there is a situation in which, because of lack of jobs in an area, the mere failure to supply jobs there involves the movement of people away from the area through economic compulsion, that is in effect a direction and an interference with the freedom of the individual.
I sought to argue on that previous occasion that it would be far more in keeping with the maintenance of the rights of the individual to direct a board of directors into a particular area—a board of, say, 20 directors, rather than to allow a situation arise where 300 or 400 or more people were directed out of an area because no jobs existed. I am not satisfied that there is a real determination on the part of hon. Members opposite to ensure that industrialists face their social obligations as well as considering their personal interests in pursuance of industrial activity.


We have recently had an indication from Ford, Vauxhall, Standard and the British Motor Corporation that they intend to expand their plants considerably in the next few months. It has been stated clearly by at least two of those corporations that irrespective of the wishes of this or any other Government, they are determined to expand in the area in which they already function. One of the corporations—I will not name it—stated that it would have to expand and that it might well consider moving elsewhere. On the following day, I wrote to the chairman of that corporation a personal letter urging him to consider my constituency, and I received from the secretary to the deputy chairman of the corporate a mere acknowledgment. This corporation is prepared to move, but at least two of them have decided not to do so.
I should like to know what will be the attitude of the Government if, when they refuse to issue development certificates to these firms, the firms nevertheless insist that they will not go elsewhere. When the Government needs for social purposes to ensure that industrial development takes place in one area, and the industrialist refuses to go and says he proposes to develop in another area, we have to consider whether we are prepared to say to the industrialist, "If we cannot induce you to go, having made all the necessary arrangements to improve the facilities in the area, in spite of everything we have done to ensure that your development will take place in which no undue economic burden is imposed on you, then in no circumstances will we issue a development certificate for the area in which you want to go. You must go to the area which we say needs industry, or you will not go anywhere at all."
During the last two days, I have developed a respect and admiration for the way the President of the Board of Trade has handled the task with which he has been presented this week. [interruption.] I cannot help offending my hon. Friends—

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will not have any now.

Mr. Loughlin: On several occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet the wishes of the Committee and

has done something. We may not like individuals, but we can say when they do the right thing. The right hon. Gentleman has great ability, and he has shown it in the last few days, whether my hon. Friends like it or not.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will consider what his position will be in the next two or three months when he is faced with a determination on the part of companies to stay where they are. If he is not determined to refuse the issue of industrial development certificates to companies which will not be persuaded to go where they are needed, the Bill will not be worth the paper which it is printed on. I hope he will ensure that industrial development certificates are issued only where the needs of the community can really best be served.

Mr. Jay: I take a middle view about the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade, and I hope that that will provoke no one at this time of the night.
I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has said about the use of the industrial development certificate. I thought that this subject was more strictly in order on Clause 18, but, since we have got thus far with it, I will say now what I had in mind. Briefly, although we are not debating the matter at length, we feel very strongly that this is really one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of the whole Bill. We all said it fairly emphatically on Second Reading, and the right hon. Gentleman is not, therefore, in any doubt about our view.
If the President of the Board of Trade weakens on the refusal of industrial development certificates in too many cases in the congested areas—we all agree that he cannot refuse them all—the whole operation will be a lost battle. On the other hand, if he is firm about it in all cases where he should be firm, he has a good chance, with the help of the inducements, of winning the battle. But I am not satisfied with the conduct of the Board of Trade, even in the past year. We know that in 1957 and 1958 the Board of Trade got appallingly lax about the operation of the whole of this policy. As a result of a great deal of agitation from this side and from other quarters, we had hoped that there had


been a tightening up in the present year, as the Parliamentary Secretary, whose continued absence we regret as much as the President does, had assured us there was.
12 midnight.
I asked the President yesterday what was the percentage going to London and the south-eastern region of all the new factory provision in Great Britain up to date this year, compared with the corresponding period last year. The figures showed that the percentage going to London was 21·5 in 1958 and 18·7 in 1959. That is only a slight improvement after all that agitation and commotion and all the various policies which we have. These are the President's own figures. It is not good enough. I do not think he will win the battle if he is no: prepared to be tougher than that. We urge him to look at these figures and resolve to do very much better from now on.

Mr. Maudling: I do not think the Committee would want me to enter at this stage into a lengthy discussion on the principles of distribution of industry policy. I confine myself to saying that I accept what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for West Gloucester (Mr. Loughlin) about the fundamental importance of the I.D.C. system to the whole success of this Bill. I am sure the Committee would not want me to comment on individual cases which may be submitted to me. That would be wrong. I accept that it is a fundamental part of the Bill and that on the way we administer this matter our devotion to the purpose of the Bill may be Judged.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(EXTENSION OF PRINCIPAL ENACTMENT TO CHANGES OF USE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: I wish briefly to ask the President of the Board of Trade two questions. As I understand it, while in future a certificate will be required if it is proposed to change a building which

is not designed as a factory to use as a factory as defined in Clause 22, no certificate will be required for the change of use of a building designed as a factory, even though it is not in use as a factory. This seems at first sight illogical. The Board of Trade wants to take wider powers to direct industry into some areas and prevent them going into others. I would have thought that if the authorities are to take these wider powers to stop a man acquiring an existing building and setting up some business in an area where they think it undesirable for more industry to congregate, it might also be as well to take similar powers over buildings designed or used as factories.
Secondly, while I appreciate the importance of this set of Clauses, and I am not in the least arguing against this Clause, there has also to be considered the position of the individuals affected. This is a very considerable power over individuals, and Clause 19 is a considerable extension of existing powers. The last thing I want to do is to delay the process by which the certificates are given or refused. but I would like to be assured that within the Department there is some system by which disputes are carefully considered, and some right of appeal given to the person who feels aggrieved by the refusal of a certificate.

Mr. Mandling: The purpose of the Clause is to stop a loophole. I gather the position has been that a building, for example a warehouse, was liable to the I.D.C. procedure because it was a building which, though not intended for industrial purposes, was suitable for it. I gather that in practice the Board of Trade has found it impossible to refuse I.D.Cs. to warehouses, because it had to operate on the basis of whether it was consistent with the proper distribution of industry, and, as it was not an industrial building, it could not be refused on that basis. Therefore, it was possible for people to get permission to erect a warehouse, and then convert it to industrial use.
A much more practical way is to put the control at the point where the building initially becomes an industrial building used for industrial purposes, and that is the point of the provision. It is right to close this loophole.


I agree about the importance of considering extremely carefully before any I.D.C. is refused. The Parliamentary Secretary—I am glad the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to him—is suffering from jaundice and will be away for a little while. It is a physical jaundice, not the mental jaundice from which some hon. Members suffer. My hon. Friend considers many of the cases himself, as I am sure is right. I assure the hon. Member that we appreciate entirely what he says about safeguarding the rights of the individual.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ACTS.)

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, to leave out "Subsection (1)of.
The Amendment should, with your permission, Sir Gordon, and that of the Committee, be taken with the one in line 33. They are purely drafting Amendments. Although the wording seems complicated, that is all they are, and I hope the Committee will accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert:
the substitution—

(a) for the references in subsections (1) and (2) of that section to premises provided as therein mentioned of references to premises of which the Board or Management Corporation are the landlord and which are situated in any such locality as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act, and
(b) for the references therein to the objects of the Distribution of Industry Acts, 1945 and 1950, of references to the purposes of Part I of this Act."[Mr. Erroll.)

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27.—(REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL, PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 16, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(7) Any legal proceedings (including applications to any authority) relating to property, rights or liabilities transferred to a Manage-

ment Corporation or Government department by virtue of section thirteen of this Act or of this section may be continued by or against the Corporation or department, as the case may be, to the exclusion of the company or Government department from whom the property, rights or liabilities were transferred.
The object of the Amendment is to eliminate difficulties regarding legal proceedings which happen to be in train at the time the Bill comes into operation, being proceedings to which estate companies or Government Departments are party and in respect of property rights or liabilities transferred by the Bill. The Amendment safeguards the position of the Government Departments, the Management Corporations and also of private individuals.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, to leave out" subsection (3) of".
Perhaps we might take at the same time the next two Amendments. The first two Amendments are consequential upon the third Amendment. The Amendments make a further modification to subsections (3) and (5) of the Clause in their operation in relation to Scotland. In short, the new paragraph (a) deals with "a halfway house" case where there is only an agreement to give security to the Treasury Solicitor or, later, to the Board of Trade, and the security has not yet been given. The Amendments make it possible to ensure that the Board of Trade will be able to demand the security in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 12, after "reference", insert "in subsection (3)".

In line 14, at end insert:
and the following provisions shall have effect for the purposes of subsections (3) and (5), that is to say:

(a) Where any agreement to which paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section applies provides that the person to whom the loan or grant is made shall if required to do so grant such security as may be specified in the agreement in favour of the Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, but the person has not before the commencement of this Act been so required. the Board shall be substituted for the said Solicitor.
(b) In relation to any heritable security which vests in the Board by virtue of subsection (5) of this section, paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of section thirteen of this Act shall have effect, subject to the necessary


modifications, as it has effect in relation to the property and rights therein mentioned". —[Mr. Erroll.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR SAFEGUARDING LOANS.)

(1) Where in the case of any undertaking a loan has been made under this Act, section four of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, or that section as extended by the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, and the Board are satisfied, in accordance with recommendations of the committee constituted for the purposes of sections three and four of this Act, that with a view to enabling all or part of the moneys lent to be recovered it is expedient to provide further financial assistance for the purposes of the undertaking, the Board may provide such further assistance of such amount and on such terms and conditions as may be recommended by the committee.

(2) Subsection (2) of section four of this Act shall apply in relation to recommendations under this section.—[Mr. Erroll.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause empowers the Board of Trade, in accordance with the recommendations of the advisory committee which recommends the giving of loans under Clause 4, to make further loans to the recipients of loans under that Clause where the making of the further loan or loans will improve the prospects of getting the original loan repaid.
In short, to use telegraphese, the object of the new Clause is to enable the Board of Trade to make loans to save loans. This is not a novelty, because the Treasury has exercised similar powers under the 1945 and 1958 Acts, but the precise wording of the Clause makes it possible for us to do it under the new conditions envisaged by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Jay.

Mr. Jay: I do not propose to move the Second Reading of the new Clause with the rubric, "Application of principal enactment to officers". I take this course in the hope and expectation that we shall be able to move it later, on Report. I am bound to say that that

is on the assumption that reasonable time is given for discussion of these many important matters when we reach Report stage.

New Clause.—(CERTAIN LAND OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO VEST IN THE BOARD.)

(1) There shall vest in the Board (without prejudice to the powers of the Board to grant a lease to the appropriate Management Corporation) any land which is wholly situated in any such locality as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act and which, being land vested for an estate in fee simple in a public authority to which this section applies and being no longer required by that public authority is offered by that public authority to the Board and not disclaimed by the Board.

(2) Such an offer as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection may be made unconditionally or subject to conditions:

Provided that no such conditions shall provide for the payment of any money by the Board.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not have effect in relation to any land until the expiry of one month (or such longer period as may be agreed between the public authority and the Board) after the making of the offer mentioned in that subsection and no disclaimer shall be made by the Board after the expiry of that month or longer period.

(4) Land vesting in the Board under this section shall be used by the Board for the purposes of this Part (Part I) of this Act.

(5) The public authorities to which this section applies are any Minister of the Crown or Government Department (other than the Board) and any Board, Commission, Agency or other body established by Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act and so established for purposes specified in the Act or order.

(6) This section shall have effect without prejudice to the powers of the Board under section two of this Act.—[Mr. Marqunand.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Earlier today, one of my hon. Friends asked whether the word "land" implied not merely land, but the buildings or other structures on it. That is the intention in this Clause and although the wording of the Clause might suggest that I am concerned only with land, I am particularly concerned with buildings belonging to or vested in Ministers, Government Departments, or Government agencies and which, having been used for some other and no doubt useful purpose by the Government, cease to be required


for that purpose. It intended to enable such buildings then to be acquired by the Board of Trade for use in development.
As we all know, all over the country there are many such buildings—Royal Ordnance factories, Ministry of Food buffer depots, even Royal Air Force stations, Royal Navy installations and so on, which have sometimes been used for new industrial development in the Development Areas when they have ceased to be required for military purposes. Many of them were put into Development Areas during the war, deliberately constructed in areas like South Wales, to make use of the war effort of the surplus labour of those areas. Some time after the war, places like the Royal Ordnance factory, Bridgend, were abandoned for warlike uses and were turned into small trading estates.
What I am trying to ensure is that in future when such Government buildings or undertakings become available, they shall at once be offered to the Board of Trade for the Board to consider whether they could be used for the development of a new industry. The Clause does not make it compulsory for the buildings to be transferred to the Board of Trade, but I hope that it will facilitate the rapid transfer from some other Government Department or agency of suitable buildings and sites for these purposes.
The example I have in mind is that with which the Minister of State is already familiar, because he and I discussed it across this Table some time ago when he was in his previous capacity as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I am thinking of the Normanby Ironworks, in my constituency, which belonged to the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, which was and still is the property of the nation. These works, for reasons which I will not attempt to go into now, became out of date and were closed down. These abandoned works now stand on the River Tees, on an excellent site, thoroughly suitable for industry.
12.15 a.m.
When I last made inquiries about what was happening I was told that the abandoned furnaces were still very hot, and nothing could be done about them. I have no doubt that by now, especially after the heavy rainfall that we have had,

they will have cooled off and be quite capable of being moved. They are heavy and cumbersome, and it will take some effort to get them away, but they can be taken away. If they were, the site could be, and should be, cleared and used for new industry.
It stands on the River Tees, an admirable accommodation, with plenty of railway track available, only a few miles from the sea. It would be a very suitable site for an undertaking using raw materials and/or exporting goods to the markets of the world. I hope that the appetite of the right hon. Gentleman will be whetted by this description, and that he will want to ensure that this property is taken over and used for new industry. If he had it in mind to remove my constituency from the provisions of the Bill—as he may have I have probed about this before but have had no answer on it—let him, for goodness' sake, at least do this first. Before descheduling or removing this site from the provisions of the Bill, let him deal with this very valuable site, which could be made vacant without a great expenditure of labour.
We have more than 3 per cent. unemployment, and even if that figure is not as high as it is in other parts of the country there is a need for opportunities to be created for further diversification. Do not let this land be immobilised, with the neighbouring ironworks lying idle, derelict, ugly, and all the other words that have been used in the debate.

Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Member was good enough to indicate the example he had in mind, and which doubtless prompted him to suggest, in his proposed new Clause, a countrywide procedure, which he thought might be applicable in the case of the Normanby Ironworks Company. We have looked very carefully at his proposal—because all his Amendments are thoughtfully constructed—but I regret to say that on this occasion there are serious difficulties standing in the way of our considering it as a possibility. First, if the Board of Trade wishes to clear land for the purpose of building a new factory, it already has the necessary powers, under Clause 2, to acquire land of the kind mentioned in the Amendment, if it considers that this will advance the purposes of Part I.


The other feature of the proposal is that the Board of Trade should automatically be offered all such land, and have to disclaim it within one month of the offer being made. That might be embarrassing for the Board of Trade, if it received a number of offers, because it would have to work very quickly in order to get out the necessary disclaimers within a month, and if it failed it would become the dumping ground for unwanted and derelict land.
Furthermore, the procedure envisaged would be unsatisfactory in regard to the title of the land, because the transfer would be on the basis of a simple offer and an acceptance, and on any subsequent resale it might be difficult to establish satisfactorily the title to the land. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman perhaps had not been able to work out all the implications of the Clause, and I thought it only fair to mention this as an added difficulty.
As regards the Normanby Ironworks, I remember the discussions across the Table which the right hon. Gentleman and I had a few months ago. If the locality in which the works were situated—in Middlesbrough—was one of high unemployment, and if the Board of Trade considered that the acquisition of those works was expedient for the promotion of the purposes of the Bill it would, under Clause 2 paragraph (a) and Clause 5 (2) have powers to acquire them. If. on the other hand, Middlesbrough is not listed, it would be contrary to the purposes of the Bill for the Board of Trade to spend public money in making the premises suitable for a now occupant. As I have tried to explain to the Committee, we can deal with Normanby Ironworks if it is in an area of high unemployment; and the conception behind the proposal is, we feel, misplaced.

Mr. Marquand: I was filled with admiration for the early part of the speech of the Minister of State. I naturally liked his reference to my constructive Amendment, of which I was myself rather proud. I hasten to add, quite modestly, that of course I did not draft it myself—that would have been beyond my capacity. That was all very pleasant and satisfactory, but the end of his speech was most disappointing. I wish he could indicate to the people of Middlesbrough

that here and now under powers in Acts not yet repealed the Board of Trade will step in, take this land, and use it for a public purpose before the Bill becomes law. If he cannot offer me satisfaction on that, as I am not in a position to divide the Committee, I shall have to allow my new Clause to be voted on.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause.—(REPORT OF BOARD.)

When under subsection (5) of section ten of this Act the Board lays before Parliament a statement of accounts for a financial year, the Board shall lay with that statement a report on the discharge of the Board's functions under this Act (including the Board's functions under Part II of this Act and under the principal enactment mentioned in that Part) during that year.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this Clause is very simple. When the Board of Trade is discharging the function we were discussing a short time ago, of making a statement of accounts before Parliament, it should at the same time lay a report on the discharge of its functions generally under the Act.
I am not in favour of laying too many paper obligations on the Board of Trade or any Government Department—most of them have plenty to do—but I think this is reasonable. We all agree that even more important than the powers we are giving the Government is the way in which they will carry them out. I think it reasonable that we should have a periodic statement as to how they have carried them out. The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that under the 1945 Act the Board of Trade accepted an obligation to make a report, I think it was at the end of three years. It seems reasonable that there should be a comparable obligation in this Bill.

Mr. Maudling: We have made a lot of progress recently in an atmosphere of harmony and I should be very sorry to spoil that harmonious atmosphere. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Hon. Members should not groan so much. If they listened to their own speeches they would have something to groan about. I am quite prepared to accept the obligation to lay an annual report together with accounts. I should like the right hon. Member to allow me to look at the actual


wording of the proposed new Clause. I think we shall have to change it a little, but I recognise that the request for an annual report and accounts seems eminently reasonable, and I accept it in principle.

Mr. Jay: Even though the harmony has its limits, we are grateful to that extent and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day and to be printed. [Bill 47.]

Orders of the Day — UGANDA (SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am sure it would be the wish of the House that, despite the fact that most hon. Members are now on their way home after a hard day's work, we should offer good wishes to the Colonial Secretary on his visit to Uganda. He will be able to stay there only two days and that, unfortunately, is hardly time enough for him fully to understand all the complexities of that country. Yet, while he is there, I hope that he will be able to meet representatives of all sections of opinion. It is true that some of those representatives are exiled or restricted in some way, but when the Colonial Secretary is able to see the situation at first hand perhaps he will give orders for these men again to have their freedom.
I fully appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will not be in a position tonight to give a full reply to all the points which I hope t) make on Uganda in the time available to me. He will, naturally, want to wait until the Colonial Secretary has returned. However, there are several points which can be described as pressing problems which the Government must resolve. The Government cannot expect to achieve any unanimity of opinion in Uganda, and only the Government can resolve the complexities of this situation.

For example, they must decide on whether to create a federal or a unitary form of State, and face up to the problem of the kingdoms in Uganda—a most thorny problem.
The Government have to consider whether there should be any protection for the minorities; the very small European minority, and the larger Asian one. There has been far too much prevarication on the part of the Government in the past few years and I hope that, in the next few months, decisions will be taken by the Government which will enable the people of Uganda to see the pattern of constitutional progress opening up before them.
There are great complexities in Uganda partly because, over the years, the British administration has failed to give a coherent indication of future constitutional development. Also, it is partly due to the fact that Uganda has not yet been able to produce political leaders who are generally respected throughout the country and who are able to knit the various tribes together into one or more major political parties.
Let us compare Uganda with Tanganyika. There are many more tribes in Tanganyika; that is admitted, but the Tanganyika African National Union has been able to bring the people together in some unity; and that applies not only to Africans, but to Europeans as well, because of that dynamic personality, Julius Nyerere. He has been able to give a lead in Tanganyika; but there has not been the emergence in Uganda of a leader who is so generally respected and able to knit the various tribes together.
Having said that. we have to admit that the Government must face the responsibility for most of the situation before us today; and it is a deplorable situation. Partly as a result of that hideous business of the deportation of the Kabaka of Buganda, effects are still felt, in that area in particular, as the Under-Secretary must know. People there have still not recovered from the awful shock of having their King deported, and then the Government trying, by high-handed methods, to force them to accept another Kabaka. Now the Kabaka has returned he has more glory as the result of returning to his throne, and this has not only given the Kabaka greater prestige, but has bolstered up


the traditionalist and feudalist groups in the Kingdom of Buganda.
The Government must accept responsibility for this position and they must, therefore, resolve it. Uganda cannot be held back. Uganda is in the middle of a continent, surrounded by countries all of which are moving forward. Kenya will have a constitutional conference next January. The Belgian Congo has proposals which are in the process of digestion. Tanganyika will have new general elections next September, and there is the possibility of complete independence within four or five years. Developments are going ahead in Ruanda-Urundi, on the borders of Uganda.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to bear in mind the tremendous importance of establishing now in Uganda the conditions which will help to make democracy a success in that country. To the north there is the Sudan, which has shown that, unless independence is established on a proper democratic basis, it is possible for military dictatorship to take over, and that is a situation we do not want to have in Uganda. We want Uganda, when it does become independent, to have a strongly-based democracy with representative institutions, a sense of participation on the part of the people, and also well-developed political parties as well as trade unions, co-operative societies and all the rest, so that there will not be the emergence of petty dictators who will be able to do what they like without any sort of controls.
For far too long there has been in Uganda an element of Colonial List administrators who cannot bring themselves to admit that Uganda will soon be an independent country and that they must, therefore, prepare Uganda for its own independence. I do not want in any way to cast aspersions on the excellent team of administrators who work devotedly in the field. In the lower ranks those men and women have done an enormous job to build up the standards in Uganda. Many of them work out there at tremendous sacrifice, and I give them every credit for the job they do. But in the higher ranks, in the second tier of administration, there are many men who have not been able to bring themselves to realise the facts of

life in the mid-twentieth century. They are living in the 1920s or 1930s in their work in colonial administration. Because they have spent nearly all their lives in the Colonial Service they have been out of touch with the stream of democratic thought elsewhere, and, quite frankly, they do not realise that Uganda is on the threshold of independence and that they must help it prepare for that independence.
That is, I think, the explanation for the ridiculous way that the nationalist movements in Uganda have been treated. the Government take high-handed action against the leaders of these political movements without just cause, take high-handed action as though they know better than those representatives of political organisations what they should be doing in their own interests, and behave towards them as though Uganda were a large kindergarten and the people were a lot of schoolchildren who have to be restrained and directed at every stage along the road. That is absolutely fantastic in this day and age.
I hope that the Under-Secretary, and, indeed, the Colonial Secretary, will pay close attention to that book of lectures published recently by Sir Andrew Cohen, an ex-Governor of Uganda, who, in the lectures, delivered in the United States, gave some very good advice on the way colonial administrations should deal with nationalist leaders. They should not be looked upon merely as agitators or Communists. Although there may be "black sheep" among them, as is often the case, they should be recognised as men genuinely trying to serve their countries. I believe that the best hope the Government have of solving the problem in Uganda is to press ahead with reforms in the constitution in cooperation with the nationalists to enable the prestige of the Legislative Council to be built up.
One of the reasons why there has been this trouble in Buganda—the boycott and the arrests that have taken place there and the turmoil that is going on in certain parts—is that people generally do not have the respect for the Legislative Council which that body deserves. I hope that as a result of the Wild Committee's Report the Government will take some decisive action to increase the prestige of the Legislative Council by


direct elections which must be held in all parts of the Protectorate, and give that body the standing in the country which will enable people in all parts to look to it and recognise it as the focal point for political agitation within the Protectorate.
This will mean that the Government must deal very strongly with the traditionalist groups in Buganda. At present, the relationship between the Governor and the Buganda Lukiko is rather like a charade, with the Lukiko at one moment passing a resolution criticising the Resident in Buganda, and the Governor, because he does not like it, then vetoeing it. At another time the Governor cuts off a grant-in-aid to the Administration, whereupon the Lukiko decides to put a levy of 5s. on everybody in Buganda. This is not the way in which relationships between the central Government and the Buganda Lukiko should be carried on.
I hope that the Government will resolve the position by insisting that direct elections to the Buganda Lukiko itself should take place in the near future. If direct elections were held in Buganda, the Lukiko would more generally represent the people in Buganda than is the case today. The feudal groups in Buganda, of course, would oppose that development. They wish to cling to their power within the Buganda area and they will resent the idea of direct elections. I hope that we shall insist that they have direct elections to make them more generally representative.
I should like to turn now to a subject of which I have given the Under-Secretary some notice, because it is an extremely important point in relation to the position of Buganda today. This is the Penal Code Amendment Bill, which is designed to prevent boycotts being effective in Uganda. Frankly, this is a stupid Bill. It is designed to make it illegal for any person to persuade any other to refrain from the buying of goods.
Because I believe that this Bill could not possibly be enforced, as it would bring the law even more into disrepute than it is today, as it has been universally condemned by public opinion in Uganda, and as all the representative members, not only the Africans but the Asians like Mr. Visana and the Euro-

peans like Mrs. Barbara Saben, oppose it, I hope that the Colonial Secretary will use his powers to prevent it being implemented. It is not a Bill which does any credit at all to the Administration in Uganda.
I will quote what Mrs. Barbara Saben, one of the European representative members on the Legislative Council, said. She said that the Bill was designed to help the Government prevent intimidation. She had very great doubts about whether the Bill would achieve that. She said that she was very unhappy that powers were to be taken in Uganda to prevent peaceful boycotts, whereas in other parts of the Commonwealth no such Bills had ever been necessary. She went on to say that she believed that the Attorney-General was genuine in his desire to end the wickedness surrounding the boycott, but that she thought he was misguided and stubborn. Mrs. Saben said:
It is no earthly use the Attorney-General arguing that the Bill is for the good of the country. The people of the country will not believe it.
How right she is.
It is possibly an under-statement to say that the Attorney-General is stubborn and misguided, because he is responsible for some disastrous advice in the past, and this anti-boycott Bill, as it has been called, is the culmination of his bad advice. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will reject it. The Attorney-General said that no prosecution would be brought unless he himself approved it and that he would not give approval without careful thought. Quite frankly, I think that is no protection at all.
One final question that I want to put to the Under-Secretary is about the Africanisation of the Civil Service. Has any effort been made in this direction? I also want to know what is now the position with regard to the appointment of chiefs. Have the Government gone back on their promise to the African district councils that they would have the authority to appoint chiefs in their areas? What is now the position of the new appointments boards which have been established?
Finally, may I say that we hope the Colonial Secretary will enjoy his stay in Uganda? He will find it a very happy country. The people there are of


different colours, but most of them, of course, are Africans. Although the Europeans and Asians are in a minority they get on very well with the African people of Uganda, and provided these political problems can be solved, and provided the Government will give some clear indication of the constitutional development of Uganda towards democratic independence, there is every hope that Uganda will develop as a contented country continuing to make real progress.

12.43 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): I would, first, like to thank the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) for the good wishes which he offered to my right hon. Friend for the success of his visit to Uganda.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of setting as our aim a democratic and constitutional Uganda. I think it is only right to say that I find it very hard to accept the strictures which he passed on what he chose to call the "second tier" of our administration in Uganda. It seems to me that these people have done a very considerable job in preparing Uganda for self-government. The latest instalment of that job has been the appointment of the Constitutional Committee, the Wild Committee. The terms of reference of that Committee provide for consideration of the problem of minority representation.
The hon. Member called on the Government to take decisions on constitutional development. The study of the Wild Report may well prepare the ground for decisions of one kind or another, but I am sure that the hon. Member does not expect me to anticipate those decisions tonight. May I say how impressed we in the Colonial Office have been by the great care and attention to detail which the members of the Committee have shown? They have been all over the territory and have taken evidence of a very detailed character from a large number of people. I should like to pay my tribute to them.
The Report was signed on 5th December and presented to the Governor on 8th December. It is a lengthy document and he will no doubt want to study it carefully. We are not prepared to comment on it until we have had a chance

to see it and to consider the Governor's comments upon it.
The hon. Member dealt, in particular, with the anti-boycott law. He gave me notice that he would speak about this, and I will try to deal with the points which he made. First, we must consider what the effect of the boycott has been. How serious is the problem of the boycott? It has led to ruinous loss to traders, mostly Asian traders, and to some flight of capital from Uganda to Kenya. Kenya may be the gainer by this, but Uganda has suffered.
About 10,000 Africans became unemployed as a result of the boycott. They formed an association which clashed with supporters of the Uganda National Movement. The fact that such clashes took place and the danger that they might well be repeated were important factors in leading the Governor to proscribe the Uganda National Movement.
The boycott has produced a great many cases of violence and intimidation. There have been 140 cases of physical assault, including one death, 101 cases of damage to crops and 158 cases of damage to property, including the burning of houses. Altogether, 282 convictions have been obtained in dealing with some of these cases. No less striking, Uganda has lost at a conservative estimate £600,000 of revenue, which is a fairly big sum for a country as small as Uganda to lose. The anti-boycott law was fully debated in the Legislative Council. As the hon. Member said, it encountered considerable opposition there. Some thought that it involved undue interference with the liberty of the subject; others thought that it would be ineffective; and there was Asian and European, as well as African, opposition.
To meet the points raised by the opposition, the Government brought forward two major amendments. The first requires that the Governor must be satisfied that the boycott is resulting in, or is likely to result in, acts leading to violence, intimidation or damage to property. The second is that the law will run only until 31st December of rant year unless it is prolonged by a resolution of the Legislative Council. The law was passed. by 31 votes to 14, which suggests that, at any rate, not all


of the representative members were prepared to press their opposition to a vote.
In the middle of November the Bill became law. As yet, there has been no prosecution under it, but, of course, it has been in operation for only a short time and it is too early to judge whether it will be effective. Our belief is that it will be effective. The boycott continues, but the number of incidents has been on the decline. This may be partly due to the law, but I think that it is also partly due to the Katikiro's statement at the beginning of November. In any case, the situation has improved sufficiently to enable us to lift some of these restrictions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the position was about the appointments boards of the district councils. In 1955 an ordinance provided for the reconstitution of the district councils, and under this ordinance appointments committees were set up which had as their task the appointment of chiefs and other employees of the district councils. Membership of these committees was left to the full discretion of the councils, but I am afraid it is the case that this discretion was rather seriously abused. Some of the appointments committees were "packed".
Instead of showing a wise balance and moderation, the majority elements on the committees sometimes represented a religious faction and at other times one of the political factions, and sometimes they consisted of a group which could hardly be described as religious or political. They "packed" the committees purely with their own nominees. As a result, the chiefs and other employees came under a good deal of pressure from whatever happened to be the predominant local faction at the time.
This led to a considerable decline in both efficiency and impartiality, and by 1957 the Governor was convinced that the 1955 ordinance must be amended. The proposal was, therefore, put forward to set up new boards to be manned on the same principle as the Public Service Commission was manned. There was full discussion of this proposal in the Legislative Council. There was some opposition to it and some modifications were made to the draft Bill. It became law in the middle of last year.
The new boards have been set up throughout the Protectorate, except in Buganda where it does not apply, in all but two districts. In Ankole, the Eishengyero is in favour of the setting up of the new boards, but one authority in Ankole has gone to law claiming that the new boards are contrary to the 1900 Ankole Agreement. Their case was turned down in the High Court, but they have appealed, so that I cannot go any further on that aspect of the issue tonight. In the Bunyoro district the Rukurato has claimed that the new boards will be contrary to the Bunyoro Agreement, and no progress has been made there up to the present.
Elsewhere there have been some criticisms, but the new boards have been accepted and are working. In some cases they have official as well as unofficial members. The intention is that in due course they should be entirely manned by unofficials when suitable persons can be found. I am glad to say that although it is less than a year since the Bill was passed into law, there is already a marked improvement in the efficiency, fairness and impartiality with which the local administration is being conducted.
The hon. Gentleman expressed regret that my right hon. Friend would not be able to see certain persons when he was in Uganda as they were, to use the hon. Member's words, "not free". The persons in question are leaders of the United Uganda National movement who took part in and led the boycott movement. I gave some description just now of the suffering that has been caused by the boycott. The activities of the individuals concerned were investigated on points of fact by two High Court judges, one of them the Chief Justice, and they found without hesitation that the leaders had organised and conducted the boycott, that they refused to call it off, and, therefore, they can in a real sense be held responsible for the intimidation and violence that has followed.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Stonehouse rose—

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member occupied 20 minutes out of the half hour available. Perhaps he will forgive me if I say what I have to say in the remaining half minute.


I do not think that the hon. Member or the House need be too concerned about the welfare of the men in question. They are receiving £60 a month from the Government. Their wives and families are with them. They are living in reasonable accommodation and as

soon as the Governor believes that it is safe from the point of view of law and order they will be allowed to return to their homes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to One o'clock.